I’ve heard that Emory plans to retool its organic chemistry class to include physical chemistry topics.
Does anyone know when this will happen and what it’s import might be?
@BiffBrown: But that only happens maybe in Fall 2017…if they are lucky. I suspect Dr. Weinschenk will teach or design the retooled course and it will basically be taught in the way he teaches 221 (especially in the beginning) where he hammers students with Molecular Orbital theory and stereoelectronic effects. For Weinschenk, this is nothing new. Also, who did you hear this form? And why does it matter?
@bernie12 I heard that it’s scheduled to begin in the Fall of 2017.
My impression is that the change will affect all orgo sections at Emory College and not just Weinschenk’s.
It would matter in that squeezing p chem into an already packed orgo syllabus means more work for students. It also matters in that p chem is a more mathematically oriented subject, which implies that students may need more mathematical preparation to succeed.
My source is highly reliable but I’d prefer not to mention any specifics.
@BiffBrown : I know the chemistry department extremely well and those in it (so am highly aware of the “proposed” changes as told to me by old mentor and favorite instructor. These are still proposed). Regardless, it doesn’t matter. Consider this, some instructors, as of now, already pitch their courses at certain levels, incorporating material not covered at all in other sections, namely Soria and Weinschenk. And most of the others choose to water their courses down quite a bit. In reality, instructors will still do whatever they want, especially tenure track instructors (those designing this curriculum have absolutely no control over tenure track folks as some are lecture track).
It will mainly be Dr. Weinschenk incorporating that aspect. Also, physical organic concepts need not include that much advanced math (in fact, it need not include it all, and neither does pchem. Pchem can theoretically be covered and tested at a conceptual level). Simply covering molecular orbital theory in the context of organic (which Soria and Weinschenk already do, but W does in more detail) and adding some kinetics is required to call it “physical organic”(physical organic courses often focus more on kinetics than anything else, and if one’s algebra and data interpretation skills are fine…you’ll live). These are actually typical components of a rigorous organic course.
Also, I think your interpretation of how classes are run when it comes to orgo and up in the chem department are off-base. Unlike general chemistry, there is essentially no syllabus. There are merely very basic guidelines of what should be covered per semester that they kind of agree to. Easier/medium level instructors stick to the book/these basic guidelines(sometimes lower) and those in the upper-range deviate to do whatever they want (W/S don’t really even employ the book that much and certainly don’t have a set syllabus displaying specific topics. They have a plan that unveils as the course goes along). They switch things around, add new stuff, or drop stuff every year. Also, the ochem syllabi are hardly "“packed”. Chemistry 221 is much more about key concepts and chem 222 is often different variants of the same reaction over and over again, so you shouldn’t view this as a super content intensive course like general chemistry or general biology. If you view it that way, I gaurantee you will study for it incorrectly, especially in the case you take a top instructor. They don’t want you to focus so much on factoids and every little reaction as much as a concept, problem solving methods, or ways of thinking through things (ideally, you just memorize a few things per unit and then begin applying it ASAP…it isn’t like biology where often the memorization is the endgoal and will suffice). I know most STEM instructors at these schools claim that, but I would say maybe 1/2 of Emory’s ochem instructors really mean it. So worry less about “keeping up” with a packed syllabus and worry more about understanding and developing a logic that can be applied to several cases. I would not fear any so called changes to that course.
The way it is taught and the hieracrchy of instructors will probably mostly be the same except more normalized toward the way Soria and Weinschenk teach (larger consideration of MO theory and or deeper structure function relationships and catalysis. This is nothing new to those who took either one of those instructors) it currently. And honestly, I think this makes sense considering that I find the variability in quality and rigor of the sections unfair as it is now (like comparing S/W versus a Jui or Scarborough is night and day. The level of depth of understanding and problem solving required to be successful in the latter two is almost criminal for Emory and is instead more reminiscent of other “not even close to peer” schools or peers with ochem instructors that make their courses more similar to biology courses, content/memorization intensive and less problem solving oriented). The best they can do is at least all cover some unifying principles. The proposal is more so a framework of achieving that sort of normalization I believe. The only thing I don’t believe is that it will work.
Why won’t the change work?
@BiffBrown You must actually have several instructors(many folks will take these “new” courses at one time, so 1-2 sections per semester will not suffice. They have to have some folks willing to do it and some not as interested, but will do it to fulfill teaching requirements…that is where the problem comes) willing to teach the new content and at a certain level. Most are not even willing to teach the current/plain gen. chem and organic at the appropriate level or with a special touch as I just explained. Typically the tenure track folks are not very faithful to freshman and sophomore courses and in the past(and currently) and when they do teach them, they tend to pivot in favor of less rigor. They will basically say: “sure I agree to teach this outline” and then do something else or do bare minimum. Their goal is to tend to their research and keep undergraduates out of their face (older faculty that are quite established and often jaded in terms of teaching undergraduates) as much as possible or to gain favor with undergraduates (younger faculty want at least decent teaching evals to avoid any red flags in the tenure process…the easiest way to gain favor is teach ok and make the course easier than it should be…this practice is well known and quite obvious to the point undergrads exploit it). People like Weinschenk are lecturers so teaching and interacting with undergraduates are the primary duty which is why he is rigorous and would likely try to teach a version of physical organic appropriate for freshman/sophomores. The others will water it down (as they do with their classes now) as they suspect students will need a lot more help handling tougher materials and exams than they are willing to provide. It would be very optimistic to think that most instructors will yield to a new structure and actually do it purposefully.
To me, it is an excellent concept that would make Emory stand-out and appear serious about training UG’s in science, but I just don’t think it will look so nice in practice. There will be lots of faking it with courses being labelled one thing, but the content being something else/underwhelming versus the advertised content. We aren’t the only to do/try stuff like this. Look at how Northwestern labels its general chemistry courses: http://www.chemistry.northwestern.edu/undergraduate/courses.html
It has special labels, but the content description is identical to a regular general chemistry course. Emory will have fancy names and maybe even a fancy course description, but most or about half of the instructors will probably teach the same content as a standard course in the subject and at a “meh, nothing special” level. If they aren’t faithful to the current recommended standards (seriously not asking for much), then definitely expect nothing if they go up. Curriculum change is a battle at any decent sized school because folks don’t want to comply for some legitimate and some political and/or selfish reasons. I am glad whoever presented it to you was optimistic…but I am more of a realist. The new curric. will be a rough transition. Only LACs and Michigan (Kind of) have pulled off even a shadow of what Emory is attempting now.