Aint it weird?

[croco]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

I was just wondering that those who are planning to take the DAT seem to be having more trouble with the general chemistry portion of the exam rather than the Organic Chemistry portion. Am I the only one that finds this weird?

 

[Comet208]

Corco,

i am not sure what "more trouble" is being refered to. Are you finding STUDYING chem to be easier than Ochem or taking the actual/practice tests of one of these to be more troublesome???
personally, i found studying Ochem easier b/c it is more focused and i can somehow understand them better. but i find taking the Ochem on DAT a lot more trickier!!

but do i still find this weird?? no!


Comet

 

[ItsGavinC]

It wasn't atypical for me because I found organic to be a much easier subject than inorganic.

I didn't study a lick for the organic section of the DAT and still did well (a 23 or 24 or something like that).

 

[PERFECT3434]

same here.
i founfd ochem to be 10 times easier than the Gchem. i understood all the concepts and had a lot of trouble learning key concepts from GChem.

i think this is the case for most people. i was really hoping i get a 17 in gchem. thank god for the 19 though!🙂

 

[ecdoesit]

it would make sense for me
since i took gchem during my freshmen/high school(AP)
and took ochem in my junior year.
memory is stilll fresh i guess

 

[group_theory]

Originally posted by ItsGavinC
It wasn't atypical for me because I found organic to be a much easier subject than inorganic.

Yeah, orgo is definately easier than inorganic. Field-ligand theory, transition metal bonding, molecular orbitals and character tables, orgometallic, etc. Inorganic Chemistry is one tough cookie.

I'm surprised they test you on topics from Inorganic on the DAT.

EDIT: Sorry for the sarcastic remark. People using inorganic in lieu of "general or introductory" chemistry is one of my pet peeves. General Chemistry is an introductory to the multiple fields of chemistry - physical, inorganic, organic, orgometallic, polymer science, etc. Inorganic Chemistry should never be confused with General Chemistry. If you doubt me, pick up "Inorganic Chemistry 2nd ed" by Miessler and Tarr. You'll noticed that it has nothing in common with General Chemistry textbooks written by Zumdahl or Purcell.

 

[drPheta]

I found it the same as well. Orgo was much easier to grasp conceptually than inorganic. Probably had something to do with all those calculations and the additional theories that went behind them.

 

[ItsGavinC]

Originally posted by group_theory
People using inorganic in lieu of "general or introductory" chemistry is one of my pet peeves. General Chemistry is an introductory to the multiple fields of chemistry - physical, inorganic, organic, orgometallic, polymer science, etc. Inorganic Chemistry should never be confused with General Chemistry.

I'm sorry, but that is completely illogical, since inorganic IS highly correlative to "general chemistry".

General chemistry, as studied in the US educational system, for all intents and purposes IS inorganic chemistry.

General chemistry at my school was NOT an introduction to any of the subdivisions you mentioned. Those subdivisions were explained in brief so that a basic knowledge was established for the purposes of pursuing inorganic chemistry, but the course was NOT a general chemistry course.

 

[group_theory]

Originally posted by ItsGavinC
I'm sorry, but that is completely illogical, since inorganic IS highly correlative to "general chemistry".

General chemistry, as studied in the US educational system, for all intents and purposes IS inorganic chemistry.

General chemistry at my school was NOT an introduction to any of the subdivisions you mentioned. Those subdivisions were explained in brief so that a basic knowledge was established for the purposes of pursuing inorganic chemistry, but the course was NOT a general chemistry course.

Since I do not know what school you went to, nor have I seen your syllabus, I don't know if you really took inorganic (or was it general chem).

If you learned the following, then you took Inorganic Chemistry: bonding theory, symmetry and group theory, molecular orbitals, acid-base chemistry (way way more detailed that what's covered in general chem books), crystalline state, coordination chemistry (bonding, structures, electronic spectra, reactions and mechanisms, etc), and some orgometallic

If you learned the following, then you took General/Intro Chemistry: stoichiometry, chemical reactions and solutions, ideal gas laws, thermochem, atomic structure and periodicity, bonding concepts, kinetics, chem equillibrium, acid/base, eletrochem

Again, not saying that you didn't take Inorganic Chemistry (although I have my doubts since Inorganic Chemistry is an upper-division course, similar to Organic, or Physical Chem). I'm just saying there is a difference between General Chemistry and Inorganic Chemistry.

Edit: Another test (thanks to my inorganic prof for this suggestion) - did the course give you the background that will enable you to understand the research of professors who study inorganic chemistry?