<p>So I hear alot that Orgo Chem is so complex and unbearable but when I taught myself how to do basic naming of carbon chains etc. I love it ! Btw I'm 17 and a Junior in high school </p>
<p>Organic Chemistry is more than “basic naming of carbon chains”.</p>
<p>I’ve also learned to memorize solvents and reagents</p>
<p>@FuturePharmD96: I love it too, but knowing reagents and compounds is not how an expert or even a student going through a difficult (more concept/problem solving/less memorization intensive) ochem class thinks about it. Those who truely enjoy it like the synthesis of complex organic compounds (IE, how smaller molecules react to yield more complex ones using the “reagents” you “know”), the mechanisms and theories that explain the transformations, and the 3-dimensional aspect of it (molecular architecture and issues of stereochemistry and conformation/molecular geometry). If you really like it, take it as a freshman in college with a challenging instructor. I worry that you only say you like it when it is memorization intensive where knowing how to name compounds (which is almost irrelevant given the ambiguity and use of 2 major systems of naming and the use of “common names” among experts) and memorizing reaction outcomes is the priority (and understanding them at a high level isn’t). Ochem is feared when it is concept/theory intensive which at many selective schools it is. Just memorizing scenarios can screw over students if they have faulty understanding in this course. It’s not all plug and chug based or “know the name of this or the outcome of that” like you’ve experienced. If you actually end up liking like I did (took advanced and grad. course work in it), you should seriously consider research in drug discovery, medicinal chemistry, or pharmacology as opposed to a PharmD. IE, you should consider the more academic side that would allow you to actually use the chemical knowledge. That’s what I aim to do.</p>
<p>This is actual ochem from a high level instructor BTW: <a href=“https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B456FmeCw42BVVRISUFjNzd3bHc/edit”>https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B456FmeCw42BVVRISUFjNzd3bHc/edit</a></p>
<p>The issues in the second half of that exam are usually issues advanced students and experts think about. Not even they think it’s easy (though they and I certainly find it fascinating and fun). This is real ochem. What you talk about is “playtime” and isn’t too far from general chemistry.</p>
<p>@FuturePharmD96 - It is a good sign that you like the idea of playing around with molecules and learning how they will react and the like. At least I hope that is what you are implying. And departing just a bit from what the others here are saying (not that they are at all wrong, but in fact are exactly right), a lot of people get scared off from chemistry in general, and OChem in particular, because they feel like they have mistakenly walked into a foreign language class 
So already knowing the lingo is indeed a bit of a head start. But now to emphasize what the others are saying, OChem fairly quickly gets into knowing a variety of “building block” reactions and the conditions under which they are run that have to be not just memorized but understood as to why they happen the way they do. So when you are asked how you would synthesize a complex steroid (no, not for the football team) that has 6 stereochemically specific locations and a strained ring hanging off a reactive center, it definitely isn’t enough to know some naming conventions and what the common solvents are. Now to be fair and not scare your pants off, that is actually material for a more advanced class, but somewhat simpler reactions of that nature do become part of the sophomore level course. You can definitely see that in the example from @bernie12 which is presumably a sophomore level course based on the 222 number. It looks scary towards the end, and it is fairly challenging stuff. But with disciplined studying (meaning no cramming) and lots of practice reactions, it is definitely doable.</p>
<p>I would only disagree with bernie12 when he says take it as a freshman. I suppose if you completely destroyed the AP Chem exam and feel very confident about your freshman chem skills, then maybe. But even then, going into a class as tough as OChem when you are first getting adjusted to college might not be the best idea. Maybe it worked for bernie, he really doesn’t say. But for most I would say it is a bad idea. JMHO.</p>
<p>@fallenchemist I actually took it with a harder (more advanced topics) instructor than the one above as a freshman. Most of the test would be like that latter half once you were half-way through the 1st semester and exams were like that from then on and the finals had no problems below application level. The more difficult problems involved deriving/creating models or explaining stuff on your own with absolutely no guidance other than the experimental outcomes provided, which is less “nice” than the above, if you need your thinking to be guided. Mechanism problems became excruciating because molecules were complex and often had multiple reactive sites and thus could possibly proceed through several pathways for a single transformation. I TAed his class, and that year, one explanation question involved deriving a model of how a large phosphonic acid catalyst facilitated the asymmetric reduction of an imine with an NADH like reducing agent. That wasn’t even the only hard problem: In fact, I’ll show that exam, it’s a timeless classic from that instructor. Problems are basically graduate level. Luckily for the experimental questions, they could choose 4/6 that they thought were easiest: <a href=“https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B456FmeCw42BcDhDRGdjTXhVT2M/edit”>https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B456FmeCw42BcDhDRGdjTXhVT2M/edit</a> And that year he was teaching sophomores (many actually did solidly on that exam. There were even A’s, which can’t be said for the next exam and the final)…the freshman class is actually more difficult and they would have had to do all 6 in a 2 hour period as opposed to 4 in a 2.25hr period. </p>
<p>Like the other guy’s whose assessment I displayed, he is an amazing teacher (and actually taught the problem solving methods in class so that even average students could perform well on some of those more difficult prompts, whereas, usually those problems can usually only be done by A level students in the other section). I don’t know how Emory found those two, but I’m glad they did. They develop your thinking skills extremely well and teach you how to navigate ambiguity and in the case of my instructor, even be creative (he would accept multiple answers to certain problems on the premise that it is how actual science is done, which is true for ochem. Hardly no one came up with a model that went unchallenged or unrefined, or was not completely refuted in favor of another one. My instructor just stipulated that it be within the realm of legitimate chemical reasoning based on core concepts. As for how I was able to take the guy, I did indeed have an AP credit. I was assuming the OP was in AP or IB and that is why they were learning some ochem. It’s not a bad choice to make if you are truly into the subject matter and want to go further in it. It’s certainly better than taking gen. chem whose curriculum is boring, outdated (almost everywhere), and had lecture halls full of students only doing what they feel forced to do for who knows what reasons. The peer group was just much better or at least more intellectually/academically interesting in my ochem class naturally and I ultimately appreciate it. I will admit it (taking ochem as a freshman) isn’t for the one that constantly worries about grades above all else or who expects it to pan out just like AP or gen. chem. It is much different and will take lots of adjustments in study habits to accommadate the different style of thinking needed to truly understand it (and in some cases, be successful. As you can see, the two above will not allow pure memorization of reactions and scenarios to earn someone an A or even a B). The class was awesome though and greatly enhanced my understanding of biological processes. </p>
<p>@fallenchemist thanks for the advice and looking at that exam sheet that @bernie12 sent is a bit intimidating. But I don’t think I’ll be taking OChem my freshman year </p>
<p>@FuturePharmD96: Yeah, doing that isn’t for everyone. There weren’t that many standard pre-meds or pre-pharm people. Over half of the class were weird folks like me who saw themselves pursuing graduate level research in a chemistry (usually ochem courses don’t have that high a percentage of chemistry majors, but frosh ochem does and that instructor even gets a large proportion of chemistry or physical science BS majors when he teaches sophomores. The other guy gets only some and most are chemistry BA’s or are maybe minoring in a physical science. The other guy is more for standard, but motivated pre-health students who want to be challenged, which is becoming less and less common. You know you’re good when you can draw such students with a class that difficult) or a biological sciences field, an MDPhD (or were maybe pre-meds already planning to do one of the four year masters programs), or were indeed weird pre-doctoral students entertaining other disciplines (sometimes physical sciences, math, and even social sciences) who were quite brilliant. It’s pretty much like placing all of the top, more intellectually driven freshman interested in science at an already selective school into a single course. Fortunately it was not curve graded by that instructor. My goose would have been cooked the first semester if it was lol. We got bonus points for class participation such as answering questions, proposing things, or doing difficult bonus p-sets or quizzes on the spot. The points went directly to midterm scores, so grades reflected a mixture of performance and work ethic and you were allowed to make up for some lame exam performances by just demonstrating your knowledge outside the context of the tests or quizzes. It was a great class with outstanding students, but no actual competition (lots of team-based learning and collaboration. Fun, unique science class though very hard). </p>
<p>@bernie12 - I have to say that is not the norm I have seen at most schools. That is really advanced stuff, as you say more like grad level problems. Interesting that it is Emory. I used to know a prof there, Liotta (Dennis I think. His brother Charlie taught at Georgia Tech). But that was like 1980. No idea if he is still around.</p>
<p>@FuturePharmD96 - Don’t be too intimidated. As I said to bernie, that is more advanced than any sophomore level course I have seen anywhere else, including Harvard. Maybe it was an honors class, bernie? Anyway, just take it a step at a time and you will be fine. I would recommend, if at all possible, that when you get to your sophomore year and take OChem, you take a slightly lighter load than any other year. In other words, instead of taking 5 classes (16 or so hours, typical at most schools) you take 4 courses (probably 13 hours because of the lab involved, although different schools do it differently sometimes) and be very disciplined to use that extra time as if it was a class and do as many OChem problems as you can get your hands on. The practice of applying the different synthesis methods to as many different molecules as possible is what makes it all sink in and make sense after awhile for most of us. The prodigies for whom it comes naturally, like music prodigies or math or chess prodigies, are few and far between.</p>
<p>@Fallenchemist: Dennis (who Soria did his doctoral work under) is still at Emory. I TAed his class twice and took grad. level synthesis with him. Charlie is still at Tech. I saw Charlie at a Center for Chemical Evolution meeting and boy do the two differ personality wise (Charlie seems way more social), but ironically both are known to be the easiest of ochem instructors at Tech and Emory lol. I can tell you that is indeed the case that Liotta is pretty easy (and generally gets the worst students). He now teaches the freshman though, and while the freshman are far superior to most sophomores who take his class, his level of teaching makes them weak in comparison to students who take Soria, Gallivan, or Weinschenk, or dare I even suggest certain gen. chem sections. He goes out of his way to lower standards for the sake of making ochem less “stressful”. </p>
<p>@bernie12 - I only met Dennis a couple of times briefly, I knew Charlie much better. Yes, Charlie is quite social. He is emeritus status now, which makes sense. He has to be in his 70’s, maybe even early 80’s. He probably is/was the easiest teacher at Tech, it would fit. Especially since back then Tech had Herb House (he has to have died by now, he was pretty old back in 1980). I would think, having come from MIT, that he was pretty tough. Anyway, we probably shouldn’t hijack this thread any further, but fun that we had some overlapping acquaintances.</p>
<p>Edit - House just passed away about 8 months ago, he was 85. He was younger than I thought when I met him in 1980. He looked older.</p>
<p>No, @fallenchemist: Emory doesn’t have honors. Ochem instructors just teach at whatever level (and teach whatever material from what perspective) they want. Soria and Weinschenk (and Gallivan to a decent extent) just teach at a far higher level (they develop a reputation and the students self-select for those sections. Similar things used to happen in gen. biology at Emory when folks like Dr. Eisen were teaching it) than other sections. But overall, you’re right. It is quite unusual, and I wouldn’t be concerned taking ochem as a freshman if I got a 5 at most places and felt confident that I could move on. However, there are other courses that freshmen may be allowed to take that allow them to explore issues of structure and reactivity. Many schools have accelerated general chemistry courses that may emphasize more structural issues of chem than AP or IB and more MO theory as well. It could serve as a nice leg up for those who are intimidated by ochem, but are indeed more interested in chemistry than normal</p>
<p>@bernie12 I’m still wanting to do pre pharm studies but like @fallenchemist said maybe try taking ochem my sophomore year that way I have more of a lighter load. Plus I just signed up for AP Chem so I’m a little excited for the rigorous work load I have coming my way this upcoming August lol </p>
<p>@FuturePharmD96 - I am sure you will do well in AP Chem. Exciting and busy year coming up for you for sure. College will seem like a breeze compared to all the AP courses and college admissions work you will have this year :)</p>
<p>Care to share where you are thinking of applying?</p>
<p>@fallenchemist aha, thanks for the awesome advice!!! 
</p>
<p>@FuturePharmD96 - I added a question just as you were posting so you might not have seen it. Any thoughts on where you want to apply to colleges?</p>
<p>@FuturePharmD96: Again, if you get the AP credit, explore potential accelerated options (like accelerated gen. chem or an honors course in it) besides ochem. It makes more sense in your case because you shouldn’t want to be turned off by a plain Jane gen. chem course, but don’t want to be overwhelmed with or outclassed in an ochem course that you jumped into too quickly. </p>
<p>Try and take it at the local community college or with a reputable,acredited online course school. It’s a complex subject but I’m glad you like the basics. Delve into the deeper stuff if you want to. </p>
<p>If OP is considering PharmD (based on his CC name), keep in mind not all PharmD programs accept AP Chem credit. My son just finished the first year of his 0-6 PharmD program at a school that didn’t accept his. They only required one year of high school Chem. Everyone in PharmD started with Gen Chem & Orgo I (that was the name of the class). Having taken AP Chem did help, I think. He didn’t find the material difficult. </p>
<p>Well, as someone who HATED general chemistry and LOVED organic (I found it much easier actually) I get it. I was probably the only one in my college class who actually enjoyed organic. I found the 3D and mirror aspects of molecules easy to envision and manipulate. I found it easy to look at a molecule and know immediately the type of effects it would have depending on bonds, additives etc. based on a set of rules rather than (unlike others say you’ve done) memorizing stuff.
And if you are indeed pre-pharm Kat is right–you’ll be taking chem again most likely. </p>