How did you guys feel about bio this year? I'm taking it this fall. There were different profs each semester if I'm not mistaken this year. Any general thoughts or tips you might share?
I can give you some pros and cons for the course with both professor, but I'll refrain from giving too much advice since I likely ended up B+ or A- this semester. Generally speaking, with Anderson memorizing lecture slides was sort of the formula to do well. Many people created flashcards to memorize the details. I'm honestly not sure there is/was a surefire formula to ace Bio with Roehrig, although it's probable that somebody on SDN got an outright A in her class and was keeping silent. Anybody?
Some Pros: I felt like a learned a lot of information in Bio both semesters. Both Dr. Anderson and Dr. Roehrig were knowledgeable and competent as professors, and they stimulated critical thinking about the material. True these are probably the bare minimum requirements for professors, but they count for something.
Some Cons: I think most people who disliked the course had gripes about the grading. Because the course is curved you are limited by the abilities and study habits of your peers, and by the percent at which they draw the cutoffs for grades. I think if the cutoffs were more generous, people would have given both the profs better reviews, and forgiven some of their specific flaws which are in and of themselves somewhat significant:
Roehrig Cons: She was not very clear in some of her lectures, and this often required that we clarify matters vis-à-vis the discussion forum or the book. Her problem sets and exams were not reviewed for errors and typos. She came off as condescending at times, and did not often give us the benefit of the doubt as the highly motivated intelligent post baccs that we truly are. Her exams had some questions which either did not make sense or were difficult to interpret. Her exams got longer and harder as the semester went on, hard to predict this...
Anderson Cons: He was very deliberate and slow at times in explaining things. It was easy to lose interest during lectures unless you got yourself psyched before you came. He was not very willing to help out with questions, and seemed to have much less involvement in how his course was run than Dr. Roehrig. His exam grading was based on keywords that he thought were essential to the question, but you might not have thought so
Now the good, to be fair to both of them
Roehrig Pros: Was dedicated to answering questions, and seemed mildly excited about teaching, at least early in the semester. She admitted when she made mistakes and made some adjustments throughout the course. She was at least capable of fabricating her niceness at times, and this suggests she maybe actually cared about us at students.
Anderson Pros: He had a sense of humor (random Larry King mugshot, what in the flying f...) and this occasionally livened up the lectures. He was pretty clear and to the point. He often let us out early. He did not give us useless assignments, and left us a lot of time to study.
Overall, would I take the course with either prof a-la carte? Hell No! But if I were already in the HCP program and/or considering the HCP program, I think there are ways to get through it and salvage a decent grade.
