<p>I'm a current sophomore in a non-Weinschenk section of Orgo. I was wondering if anyone had any experience taking another professor first semester and switching Weinschenk for second semester? Any feedback would be appreciated.</p>
<p>Can you be more specific and tell where you come from? I’ve seen how it works as many people have done this (I’ve tutored such people). Primarily, they are people from Gallivan, Soria, Davies (I imagine a McGill student can make an okay transition as well). Unless brilliant, they usually perform the same (if they were in the B range before, they usually end up there unless they slack off. An A will likely go no lower than B+. A C student can move up or down. If from a difficult section, and they put in the same level of work or a little more, they may move up some, but if they put in less work or are from an easy section, they may darn near flunk the course). </p>
<p>It’s definitely a transition, but he’ll often structure his lecture note problems to include stuff that is a review of 221 material he taught his students, so you should be able to catch up if you work closely with him or team up with someone else who took 221 w/him. Don’t get me wrong, you can get through his mid-terms decently (maybe you’ll hit the curve) without paying much attention to the 221 stuff, but often the most difficult exam problems (The so called “part 2” of the exam: you need to get a good chunk of this to even think about earning a B+ or higher) starting at maybe exam 2, will call on you to use the knowledge from 221 that he likely covered in more depth than a less rigorous section (anyone other than like Soria). One accommodation that Weinschenk usually makes for non-legacy students in 222 is to eliminate or drop the emphasis on the molecular orbital approach (HOMO-LUMO, which is actually quite easy in my opinion), however, what usually happens is, the harder problems (non-mechanistic) may focus on stereochemistry (they’ll be things like deriving a chair-like transition state for some reaction. This is already challenging and made even more challenging if you didn’t really learn to understand ring conformations that well. You’ll basically have to skip such a problem if you don’t know chairs). Also, you’ll need to understand acidity and basicity really well. You should be able to at least do comparisons of pkas of more complex molecules by inspection before you enter the course, because when you get there you’ll be asked to memorize some baseline pka’s (pka’s of basic molecules like a ketone, ammonia, alcohols, alkynes) and will, on an exam, be asked to cite such a number as you compare one basic molecule with a more complex number (or be asked, “rank these” or “how does the reactivity of this large molecule compare with the other” citing relevant issues of reactivity and a baseline pka value). You’ll just have to be adaptable if you want higher than say a B(near the median).<br>
Note that it is also best if you came from a class that quizzed or had something in place that made you stay on top of things. The biggest issue about W’s class is being bombarded with lots of course materials and resources. Many people don’t use them. Like they won’t start seriously looking at lecture notes/QTPs until an exam is around the corner. They’ll basically be looking at them for the first time or go to orgo. mentors not having even looked at the OYO (they basically just sit there and copy the answers or approach of the mentor and then if they don’t get it, have said mentor resuscitate them after everyone else leaves. This is passive learning, and fails miserably in courses with difficult exams because passive learning is more conducive to memorization/algorhytmic problem solving. W’s more difficult exam prompts will not look just like the OYO or past exams. Often it won’t even be close…). It’s very important to stay aloof without constant reminders or benchmarks such as a quiz.</p>
<p>Thanks for the reply. I am in McGill’s section right now. She won’t be teaching orgo in the spring and isn’t teaching in person again until mid-November due to a medical procedure, so it’ll make things a bit tougher this semester.</p>
<p>I had mulford for both semesters gen chem and did well, but i haven’t found McGill’s style to suit me very well. As far as material goes, she placed lots of emphasis on acid/base chemistry, making us know pkas and such. She puts a lot of emphasis on drawing structures and building using model kits, but I feel that it won’t translate to other classes and situations where they can’t be used. I guess she builds an over reliance on having model kits as opposed to methods of doing stereochemistry without the crutch, which is my main worry for next semester when she isn’t teaching. I was also wondering, how is McDonald and Scarborough in comparison to McGill and Weinschenk? I’d image they’d be more like McGill but am not sure.</p>
<p>Bad (McDonald, Scarborough) and of low caliber (I need not discuss the peer group you’d be among…). Don’t waste money and time on these two. If McGill is teaching you that sort of stuff, a transition to Weinschenk’s class would be solid. She may be prepping you with the idea in mind that many students will want to move to Weinschenk (she probably prefers it as he is the quality instructor next semester, with Gallivan a distant second). And also, using a model is good, even Weinschenk allows it. You just want to be able to ween yourself off of it so that you can work faster. </p>
<p>Also, do not be compelled compare general chemistry instruction to organic instruction (Gen. chem doesn’t really challenge you in terms of solving difficult problems or thinking differently about reactivity). You may be expecting something similar to what Mulford did, but a lecture/powerpoint style is ineffective for teaching organic beyond memorization (Mulford’s tests are somewhat challenging, but mainly focus on math and plug-and-chug type of applications. I took Eisen for cell biology, and cannot imagine how horribly we would have failed if he taught the class in a ppt/didactic lecture format. The tests are nothing like standard “regurgitate the ppt, book, p-sets, w/e” biology exams that you get in most bio. classes at Emory. The same difference applies for orgo. vs. gen. chem). </p>
<p>Scarborough is the only teacher to use ppt in organic and it has disastrous results (unless you’re really smart or already did like a B or higher in like Soria or Weinschenk’s class). He gives relatively simple exams, and averages are below 60. Last year, if you compared it to the most difficult sections (Soria and Weinschenk), the exams were way easier, but his grades lower or the same (there is also another indicator that Scarborough and McDonald’s class bombed that essentially suggested that they suck, but I won’t discuss it on this forum publicly). McDonald is just a poor instructor who really doesn’t have time to teach students properly. He will be using group problem solving in class this upcoming semester (he did it with the freshman last year and maybe wanted to try it again), but I hear he is not good at executing this method (if it was Soria or McGill, it would likely be extremely effective, but these are teachers who actually care about quality instruction). In general, McDonald really just doesn’t care. Those two are nothing like either of those two instructors. I really just recommend getting your money’s worth by just taking W (I feel like 222 with him is easier anyway. It’s more reaction and mechanism oriented. The exams don’t require the extremely deep conceptual knowledge that 221 does. It’s more easy to guess the answers for “part 2” in 222 than it is 221) If not that, then Gallivan I guess.</p>