Hey guys, so I’m going to be a sophomore next year and I have to take bio and orgo. The way my schedule works out I can either take Hare for orgo and singleton for bio, or sulikowski for orgo and patton/graham for bio. Does anyone know anything about these professors? I’m pretty stuck. I heard that hare is better for orgo but patton/graham are better for bio?
@hsstudent2015 : What is “better”? You mean easier? RMP and my friend there says that Sulikowski typically has the highest ratings while also having decent exam averages (she was apparently like 80-80something for most of ochem 1 despite being known as “hard”). If you’re talking quality, my guess is that she is your best bet. For biology, he took Singleton, and while he said he emphasized the correct skillset (like for MCAT prep and stuff, because he had WAY more problem solving while others were rote memorization), he was a jerk and also didn’t prepare students to think the way they needed to to be successful. Given that, you may as well just settle for a memorization oriented instructors as it will make little difference in learning outcome and you may already be used to that sort of STEM learning (thus chances for a higher grade are increased). My friend definitely said Singleton wasn’t worth it (though he did decently in the course). The man has the right idea in terms of how students should be tested and learning in biology, but just can’t teach well and is very rude.
Which sulikowski? Mrs is pretty easy, while Mr is known to be pretty difficult.
@AnnieBot and @hsstudent2015 Mr. is apparently just known as lower quality while Mrs. is known as “harder” (people claim that her exams are more problem solving oriented than others where memorization of reactions and basic arrow mechanisms work well enough to succeed. She likely asks for explanations of things every now and then or throws a curveball or two, but I haven’t actually seen her stuff. I think @Suffer took her so can comment. Most of the others I saw were lots of T/F, MC, product prediction, basic mechanisms, and synthesis. Not much “application” or explanation types that couldn’t be regurgitated directly from lectures or the book. I’ve been told she deviates a little from that sort of exam format), but just much better so averages are higher. Like there was a Dr. “K” (no longer at Vanderbilt and can barely spell the name, the one my friend took for ochem 1) who technically (according to what he saw) had easier or similar tests to her but significantly lower exam means (like low 60s sometimes). I suspect that is what could be going on when some of these folks are being compared. Low teaching quality just makes some people seem hard, but if you look at the materials, the difference in average cannot be explained by a difference in level of material or exams.
Be really careful when people say “hard” and “easy” as it is all relative and teaching quality must be taken into account. Might be better to contact a couple of upperclassmen currently taking any of the instructors being offered and ask if you can have or see a back exams between some of the professors (or if they can explain the format if they are uncomfortable sharing the material). Even if you don’t know the material, sometimes differences in format that will make an exam harder or easier to most STEM majors is rather obvious. Another option is to just visit the classes of those who will return in the fall and see who you like. A little peak at the materials or experiencing the teaching is often better than our hearsay. This isn’t a problem with gen. chem there because exams are standardized, but in this case they differ.
@AnnieBot : Haven’t you taken ochem already? Maybe tell them how your person was and how it worked.
So mrs. sulikowski is harder but prepares you better? Does anyone know what hare’s reputation is? She has good reviews on RMP. Patton/Graham seems to be pretty universally considered the best for bio.
@bernie12 @AnnieBot @Suffer
@hsstudent2015 Always remember that best in a tough pre-med environment (such as that at selective schools) often can just mean ease of success and sometimes has little to do with quality. All I’ve heard (actually I saw the exams before) about that duo is that they have detailed but straight-forward/memorization oriented exams and are better teachers than the others which I guess is good as you can take upperlevel biology or chemistry courses that teach you more about how to “think” about biological processes and experiments. For now, maybe just get out of the intro. course in tact Hare, the rmp ratings appear to have sample bias but look promising (has no reputation, too new). Often younger teachers are among the better or at least more enthusiastic ones so I can trust the ratings…somewhat. Sounds like they all essentially run their courses the same (powerpoints or classpacks/a combo of both) so at this point you’re just trying to optimize teaching quality/who communicates the clearest. I haven’t heard of any ochem prof. at Vanderbilt writing unusually difficult exams…more along the lines of standard level organic tests (which also means no or a very small grading curve because students at selective schools can beast standard level exams with C+ and higher averages each time assuming an acceptable level of instruction).
I personally think Sulikowski is the easiest professor for orgo, but I haven’t taken the other professors so I can’t say for sure. However, that’s based on what I hear from other people, and that her averages are higher (but her curve is not as big). There’s definitely some “curveballs” on her exam and she sometimes asks some conceptual stuff.
I don’t really like classes where the professor makes the test super hard so they can set their own curve at the end, and I think that’s what Hare does but I can’t remember exactly.
Sulikowski is definitely a good teacher so you should have no problem learning the info. She has a guided notes packet so you only have to read if you don’t understand something (or just save yourself time and go to her office hours and ask her… she’s good at explaining concepts in a way that students can understand)
@bernie12 I was/still am in Freshman Organic, which has an entirely separate professor and textbook than the other orgo classes. Most of my info is from my friends in lab, who all generally agree Mrs. Sullokowski is probably the best prof for orgo.
@Suffer : I guess it just depends. For some, seeing the lower grades is demoralizing enough to distract from learning the material(I had a good friend tell me that this is how she felt in my ochem teacher’s course and one of her advanced physics classes so I can kind of see where folks are coming from), but for many others, a challenging exam can just push the student to acquire or begin to use higher level thinking and skills when studying more often than normal (because you can’t really “beat” the exam and peers with only content knowledge and a basic conceptual foundation…you have to understand much better to score “well” which is relative in that case). Such exams are honestly more representative of things like the MCAT and GRE subject tests which are not built to get perfect (or even particularly high) raw scores on. Any test requiring a high degree of problem solving that is say, non-math (well, in extreme cases a hard math class will require creativity, as can an organic chemistry course and upper-level biology courses), usually will not yield skewed right score distribution. That level of problem solving isn’t the type that everyone is equally able to do under a time pressure. Getting used to seeing lower scores does take thicker skin however (but I do prefer it as typically I do learn more and learn how to think outside of the box. In addition, there is simply much more room for error. While I know there is security in memorizing some details and basic concepts and being able to make an A, the process annoys me and feels kind of petty almost. I feel more comfortable missing something because I just couldn’t “see it” at the time as opposed to merely forgetting).
@AnnieBot : Is that new guy for freshman ochem 2 (I think Rizzo was ochem 1 and my friend seems reluctant to take him for an elective as he was very dry and memorization oriented for ochem 2) challenging or good at the problem solving stuff when he teaches or has memorization/basic level problem solving been working best. My friend and I looked at his website and noticed he had some interesting problems (likely for his lab meetings or an advanced course) and it looked pretty interesting/challenging. My friend is a chemistry major there and doesn’t like courses that rely too much on memorization/rote problem solving and actually performs better in courses that give more open-ended/less rote problems (typically he does well in classes with the lower exam means that suffer speaks of). If that guy is teaching an advanced elective and is good at that sort of thing, maybe I can tell him to look out for an advanced course taught by the guy in the fall.
Also, I among the folks who took frosh org at my school (had basically the hardest ochem prof. for it too…a fun struggle is what I would call it). Welcome to “the club”.
To provide a dissenting opinion, I really disliked Mrs. Sulikowski’s orgo I. She provides you a lot of resources, but as a result she expects more of you, so it cancels out. I also really disliked her style of lecturing, where she basically just “fills in the blanks” of a huge class pack she gives you. Some tests were very randomly frustrating and unfair, with huge portions of the test based on obscure detail not emphasized earlier in the class. Others were easy. Also, I feel like since she’s just a lecturer rather than a research professor, she almost pays too much attention to the class in a way. She seems to enjoy fostering a desperate, anxious, competitive and grade-grubbing class atmosphere.
Honestly, the professors you take really don’t matter. I did the same thing as you and chose Graham/Patton and Sulikowski because they were supposed to be the best, but there was really no difference in the outcomes between myself and peers in other classes. Also, the pre-req weedouts(chem/orgo/bio/calc/physics) all do an equally poor job of preparing you for upper levels or the MCAT, no matter the professor. They exist as artificial obstacles, so just go ahead and pick the one that gives you the best schedule time wise or fits in best with your other courses (which should be as easy as possible) and get ready for a really difficult year.
@fdgjfg : The “fill-in-the blanks” thing sounds a little “rachet”…doesn’t seem like how ochem should be learned (encourages memorization…best way of encouraging conceptual knowledge is getting students to answer questions or work problems on the spot. Not a biology class, notes should be taken by student and handouts can be given challenging concepts or large molecules). Also, grade-grubbing competitive atmospheres also tend to happen in content(memorization) focused courses(which is why I like the curve-fit exams. No one will grub for points when they are just appreciative to score on some of the problems because scoring is a feat in and of itself to be proud of. Students tend to grub for grades when they know for sure there are very specific answers and/or approaches and theirs was close and lesser so when it was an educated guess/going out on a limb. In the latter case, folks are like “yaah, I got partial credit on the seemingly impossible problem”)…don’t understand why she (and others there and elsewhere) gives a course like that. Ochem can be very fun and stimulate a much different style of thinking if it is simply taught and tested properly (basically in a way that gets students thinking, rationalizing, and deriving models the way the research chemists and any scientist would themselves). It is almost like saying:“Even though this is a top school, I don’t think it is worth teaching you guys to think at these levels and it is more convenient to have you just know the details and test you really hard on those” and trust me I’ve had my share of those. It is really annoying. They are watering it down in a way but still attempting to beat the students in some instances by simply tricking them and hardest questions are testing things likely to be flat out forgotten more so than testing to see depth of thought.
Bio: You sure you want them entertaining Singleton? My friend loves critical thinking but hated that class and guy. I trust him that something “not so good” must be happening there.
@bernie12 the people on ratemyprofessor say that singleton is memorization and patton is more critical thinking…
I’m so confused, I keep switching between which profs to take. Can you guys just tell me which ones to take?
Take a look at Vanderbilt Voice evaluations too.
@Sophie1295 That was actually pretty helpful, except they didn’t have anything for hare. students seemed to say that sulikowski was hard but really good
@hsstudent2015 : Maybe they all require memorization. I saw the exams, and it appeared to me that the non-Singleton people were more about details than problem solving. Singleton’s exams had more “problems” so to speak. You likely had to know details well to navigate the problems, but they were problems nonetheless (more responsible for drawing things or predicting the outcome of a perturbed experiment in short answer format). I think I saw Graham’s part and that was definitely mostly memorization (it appeared that if you rote memorized the book or lectures, you could do decently on those types of exams. Questions were very “pointed” and specific). If you can get conceptual done well at any point in the semester, I would go with it as you’ll likely get more out of the course.
I have Hare currently as my orgo professor (I also had her first semester), and I love her. As far as orgo professors go, she is definitely one of the tougher ones. Her test averages usually in the mid-low seventies, though there is a nice curve at the end. Although she is a younger professor and new this year, she is a great teacher (guided powerpoint notes that you fill out with her during class), and her tests really force you to understand orgo, not just memorize a bunch of reactions. She is extremely approachable and always willing to help outside of class. I would definitely recommend her if you want to learn the material and not just to get a grade.
Another vote for Hare. My D has her right now and absolutely adores her. In fact, she has already asked her to write a rec letter for med schools.
D could have written @Libera44’s post. That is exactly how she describes the class, curve, and material. D says Hare is an excellent teacher and is very approachable. I believe she is D’s favorite professor so far.
She even puts smiley faces on your tests when she likes your work 
@bernie12 I think Townsend is probably the best professor for orgo. He’s challenging and requiring out of his students(his tests are more critical thinking than anything; much of it was more “what went wrong in this reaction” mechanism based question than the general synthesis ones), but he’s always there for his students. He gave out his phone number the first day of class and asked us to text/call him if we had ANY questions over orgo. He’s pretty chill in class. Half of the class nominated him for the “Best Professor” Award Vanderbilt puts on.
He also writes really funny comments on your tests, so you can laugh while you cry about your grade.
@AnnieBot : Nice to hear the younger professors there pulling out the stops (I told my friend that Vanderbilt’s sciences could benefit from younger/newer faculty members and he has experienced it)! My professor was a “hard” but personable guy (he literally hosted sporting events for bonus points to go toward exams to build more class community and even now that he teaches sophomores, still runs his class the same way with lots of group work, extremely challenging exams, harsh grading, and bonus points instead of curve. Also learns all names) kind of like you describe and he won awards several times as well and is known for training students really well (always had a nice balance of pre-healths and those planning to pursue industry or research so would often teach things, especially in ochem 2, that would only be reserved for graduate level courses which benefitted me down the road…lots of stereochemical models and catalysis where other sections just cast sterochem aside in ochem 2). Really good to hear other freshman ochem students even at other schools getting at least one instructor who purposely trains well because at many schools, instructors attempt to give a “baby orgo” or “orgo lite” version to freshmen which is senseless since they have more desire/ambition in chemistry than others with AP credit who decided to wait and also have a higher likelihood of being a chemistry major.