What was the hardest prerequisite?

[NeuResurgens]

Is curving prereq courses common? I haven't taken them all yet, but of the ones I have (bio, chem, physics), only one of them was curved.

It's pretty department dependent. All my chemistry and physics classes were curved, but none of the bio ones were. Of course the chem and phys ones were generally very hard, so the curve only helped students because we all scored too low to get an A outright. Except in the aforementioned scenario.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[aldol16]

the reaction isn't a simple reduction, because the carbonyl carbon is lost as carbon dioxide. this means a rearrangement/degradation reaction took place. a simple reduction with LiAlH4 would result in an amine with the total number of carbon atoms unchanged.

then again, i don't remember much chemistry, so i defer to the chemistry professor @aldol16

I'm flattered, but I can't claim to be a chemistry professor yet! When I taught, I taught under the direct supervision of a faculty member. I ran recitations every week and review sessions and taught a few lectures.

Okay, so your chemical intuition is good, but this is one of those weird cases. LAH is a very strong reducing agent and it actually will reduce an amide to an amine but requires two stoichiometric equivalents of LAH to do so. So here's how it works mechanistically. The LAH will donate a hydride to reduce the carbonyl. The oxygen anion will coordinate to the aluminum of the now oxidized LAH. Then, the lone pair on the nitrogen collapses to form an imine, kicking out the -O-AlH3. Then another equivalent of LAH comes in to donate another hydride to the imine, reducing that carbon again to form an amine.

Note that LAH does this only because it's so strong of a reducing agent. The weaker NaBH4 will not do this.

 

[Dandine]

Answering the question is a toss-up between physics, ochem, and biochem because those were the hardest out of the pre-reqs I had to take. After some reflecting though, I had to give it to ochem. I didn't want to, but I had to.

The reason for this is that studying for ochem required a lot of time to understand how the material works. Physics is arguably this, but if I understood the problems I could generally understand how the concepts worked. Biochem was hard but mainly memorization, so it was hard in terms of the bulk but not the material.

Ochem on the other hand gives you concepts, but the multiple problem types and possibilities, on top of the bulk, made it really hard to study for. I do not think my ochem classes were difficult in terms of material--I would give that to maybe physics 2. But to learn how to study in a way to truly understand how to use that material took a very long time for me.

 

[Lawpy]

I'm flattered, but I can't claim to be a chemistry professor yet! When I taught, I taught under the direct supervision of a faculty member. I ran recitations every week and review sessions and taught a few lectures.

Okay, so your chemical intuition is good, but this is one of those weird cases. LAH is a very strong reducing agent and it actually will reduce an amide to an amine but requires two stoichiometric equivalents of LAH to do so. So here's how it works mechanistically. The LAH will donate a hydride to reduce the carbonyl. The oxygen anion will coordinate to the aluminum of the now oxidized LAH. Then, the lone pair on the nitrogen collapses to form an imine, kicking out the -O-AlH3. Then another equivalent of LAH comes in to donate another hydride to the imine, reducing that carbon again to form an amine.

Note that LAH does this only because it's so strong of a reducing agent. The weaker NaBH4 will not do this.

thanks for the explanation on the mechanism. but the reaction posted earlier shows something else, and someone said why LiAlH4 couldn't be used in that reaction.

 

[aldol16]

thanks for the explanation on the mechanism. but the reaction posted earlier shows something else, and someone said why LiAlH4 couldn't be used in that reaction.

Ah, I see. I didn't read it too carefully. My mistake!

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

It's pretty department dependent. All my chemistry and physics classes were curved, but none of the bio ones were. Of course the chem and phys ones were generally very hard, so the curve only helped students because we all scored too low to get an A outright. Except in the aforementioned scenario.

The only course I took that was curved was the one course I found super easy (physics). I hate chemistry, so I kind of wish that was curved haha.

 

[tessellations]

I'm taking Biochem at the moment, and I'm doing pretty well in it right now, though I have an exam coming up that I'm a little bit terrified for on glycolysis, the Krebs cycle, and the ETC. It's going to suck.

I got As in the other prereqs.

For me, Orgo II and Biochem are the hardest prereqs because they require the most amount of attention to detail, memorization, and understanding of the material. Granted, I'm taking the major version of Biochem and we go into a bizarre level of detail. My skill at "good guessing" has really come into play with some of our multiple choice questions. I feel like I pull off a miracle every time I take an exam, haha.

Not a prereq, but I'm also taking an impossible Genetics class right now that is SO hard. Our exam averages are abysmal, and the last exam was literally the hardest exam I've taken in college so far (I'm a junior). And this is an intro class! But I'm fairly certain the professor is going to have to curve the class in the end because people have been doing pretty terribly.

 

[Saifa]

Let me guess, there are formulas and some math that you have to memorize. I can handle that.

This might be the most epic uninformed assumption about a class ever.

I've found that even people who did well/liked organic still will not imply that it was "easy." For most the material is straight up alien.

If I had to vote for my worst grade it would be calc II. I think I'll be lucky to earn a B at this point, and that will be a hard-earned B.

 

[NeuResurgens]

The only course I took that was curved was the one course I found super easy (physics). I hate chemistry, so I kind of wish that was curved haha.

Same for me on gen chem. In second half I had points retroactively taken away on a test because I put the wrong answer, but it was keyed incorrectly as the right answer, so those points were removed because he regraded them all. Made the difference between an A and A- and I was not happy.

In contrast, my Ochem professor specifically said he'd never take points away from us because of his mistakes, so that was nice.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

This might be the most epic uninformed assumption about a class ever.

I've found that even people who did well/liked organic still will not imply that it was "easy." For most the material is straight up alien.

If I had to vote for my worst grade it would be calc II. I think I'll be lucky to earn a B at this point, and that will be a hard-earned B.

Calc II should be the hardest of the calc series. Are you using Khan academy and Paul's online math notes? They helped me a lot through basically my whole math degree (Khan stops after diffeq though).

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Same for me on gen chem. In second half I had points retroactively taken away on a test because I put the wrong answer, but it was keyed incorrectly as the right answer, so those points were removed because he regarded them all. Made the difference between an A and A- and I was not happy.

In contrast, my Ochem professor specifically said he'd never take points away from us because of his mistakes, so that was nice.

What a dickweed.

 

[NeuResurgens]

What a dickweed.

Yeah. I understand the concept of justice with changing the grade to reflect right and wrong answers, but the human mind isn't rational and you still feel like you got jobbed if you think you got a certain grade and then have it taken away.

 

[pseud0]

I honestly kinda think its bull**** that some schools curve the hard courses and some dont. None of my prereq courses were curved, and i still managed to do very well. If Orgo was curved, I'd have 2 As instead of 2 A-'s probably (the averages were terrible and they dont curve so they had to let them stay terrible). How is this fair?

 

[NeuResurgens]

I honestly kinda think its bull**** that some schools curve the hard courses and some dont. None of my prereq courses were curved, and i still managed to do very well. If Orgo was curved, I'd have 2 As instead of 2 A-'s probably (the averages were terrible and they dont curve so they had to let them stay terrible). How is this fair?

This is what the MCAT is for. Med schools understand that not all schools grade the same and use a standardized measure to even the playing field.

 

[Saifa]

Calc II should be the hardest of the calc series. Are you using Khan academy and Paul's online math notes? They helped me a lot through basically my whole math degree (Khan stops after diffeq though).

I picked up with Khan after utterly bombing my first exam (I totally underestimated the class having pretty much floated through any calc. classes prior) and have earned an A on both following exams, but that first grade has been a tough recovery and the final is rumored to be nothing short of abominable. Professor is tough and indifferent as well, the mean for the latest exam was a 59.4, median 62, and a low of 3 (no-show zeroes are omitted so that was an honest-to-goodness stab that earned a 3). I earned the high on the previous two and I think I owe it all to Khan Academy.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

I picked up with Khan after utterly bombing my first exam (I totally underestimated the class having pretty much floated through any calc. classes prior) and have earned an A on both following exams, but that first grade has been a tough recovery and the final is rumored to be nothing short of abominable. Professor is tough and indifferent as well, the mean for the latest exam was a 59.4, median 62, and a low of 3 (no-show zeroes are omitted so that was an honest-to-goodness stab that earned a 3). I earned the high on the previous two and I think I owe it all to Khan Academy.

Calc 2 can be rough. It helps to solidify it using concrete examples (no pun intended). Check out Paul's Online Math Notes. They can be a huge help.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Yeah. I understand the concept of justice with changing the grade to reflect right and wrong answers, but the human mind isn't rational and you still feel like you got jobbed if you think you got a certain grade and then have it taken away.

Yeah, I just think it's crap that you should get points deducted because of his mistake. I'd never do that. If he wanted the scores to be accurate, he should have been more careful.

 

[aldol16]

Same for me on gen chem. In second half I had points retroactively taken away on a test because I put the wrong answer, but it was keyed incorrectly as the right answer, so those points were removed because he regraded them all. Made the difference between an A and A- and I was not happy.

In contrast, my Ochem professor specifically said he'd never take points away from us because of his mistakes, so that was nice.

I read your post commenting on the psychology of feeling bad after getting those points first, but I don't think you should expect to get points for "your professor's mistake" if only for the inconvenient truth that you didn't earn those points. However, he should not have released grades until after he had regraded them all. We don't have scantron exams but when we graded exams, we always made sure to check our grading so that it was accurate before we released grades so that if we were supposed to take more or fewer points away, we made that adjustment before the student ever receives his or her grades back.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

I read your post commenting on the psychology of feeling bad after getting those points first, but I don't think you should expect to get points for "your professor's mistake" if only for the inconvenient truth that you didn't earn those points. However, he should not have released grades until after he had regraded them all. We don't have scantron exams but when we graded exams, we always made sure to check our grading so that it was accurate before we released grades so that if we were supposed to take more or fewer points away, we made that adjustment before the student ever receives his or her grades back.

Right. The point is that he made a mistake and then released the grades including that mistake. Every prof or instructor that I've had who has done something like that let us keep the points because it was a mistake on their part.

I even had one prof call mistakes "happy accidents, like when the bank accidentally gives you money."

 

[aldol16]

Right. The point is that he made a mistake and then released the grades including that mistake. Every prof or instructor that I've had who has done something like that let us keep the points because it was a mistake on their part.

I even had one prof call mistakes "happy accidents, like when the bank accidentally gives you money."

Yeah. In Monopoly, it's "Bank error in your favor." But my point is, either way, you shouldn't believe that you are entitled to those points just because your professor made a mistake. I agree that the way the professor went about doing it was wrong and even unethical but it wouldn't be so hard a hit unless he thought he deserved those points. If the bank gives you $200 extra and then takes it away a week later, apologizing for their mistake and saying that you can't keep the money. Well, it's really no biggie to me because it wasn't mine to begin with. It's different from a situation where you don't know if you actually deserved the good that was given to you. Like a med school sending you an acceptance and then "oh, we're sorry, there was a glitch in our system." In that case, you never even knew that you didn't deserve the acceptance and so there was never a doubt in your mind.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Yeah. In Monopoly, it's "Bank error in your favor." But my point is, either way, you shouldn't believe that you are entitled to those points just because your professor made a mistake. I agree that the way the professor went about doing it was wrong and even unethical but it wouldn't be so hard a hit unless he thought he deserved those points. If the bank gives you $200 extra and then takes it away a week later, apologizing for their mistake and saying that you can't keep the money. Well, it's really no biggie to me because it wasn't mine to begin with. It's different from a situation where you don't know if you actually deserved the good that was given to you. Like a med school sending you an acceptance and then "oh, we're sorry, there was a glitch in our system." In that case, you never even knew that you didn't deserve the acceptance and so there was never a doubt in your mind.

Yeah, I get what you're saying. But $200 that wasn't yours is different from points on a test. It's just a matter of principle to me. If I'm the prof and I screwed up on the test and gave some people extra points, I'm not taking them back.

 

[NeuResurgens]

Yeah. In Monopoly, it's "Bank error in your favor." But my point is, either way, you shouldn't believe that you are entitled to those points just because your professor made a mistake. I agree that the way the professor went about doing it was wrong and even unethical but it wouldn't be so hard a hit unless he thought he deserved those points. If the bank gives you $200 extra and then takes it away a week later, apologizing for their mistake and saying that you can't keep the money. Well, it's really no biggie to me because it wasn't mine to begin with. It's different from a situation where you don't know if you actually deserved the good that was given to you. Like a med school sending you an acceptance and then "oh, we're sorry, there was a glitch in our system." In that case, you never even knew that you didn't deserve the acceptance and so there was never a doubt in your mind.

That's the point I'm making. It's technically just, but just feels wrong. Humans don't take kindly to having their hopes raised and then being let down.

 

[cloudstrife2054]

I thought biochem was the easiest of all the chems. I think it's because I like biology a lot and biochem was the most related to biology of the 3 chem classes. I took it over the summer and got an A and the class average was a D+ no curve and I bot a C in ochem B.

 

[libertyyne]

I honestly kinda think its bull**** that some schools curve the hard courses and some dont. None of my prereq courses were curved, and i still managed to do very well. If Orgo was curved, I'd have 2 As instead of 2 A-'s probably (the averages were terrible and they dont curve so they had to let them stay terrible). How is this fair?

That's why the mcat exists. If you are better prepared then your peers you should score better. Grade inflation is a thing, and variation between classes exists from semester to semester and instructor to instructor.

 

[Mad Jack]

I really don't understand how the answer could be anything but organic chemistry.

Orgo was intuitive for me. Physics, not so much.

 

[JustAPhD]

Orgo was intuitive for me. Physics, not so much.

Building off of that, OChem was one of my favorite classes in undergrad because it was interesting. Sure it wasn't a walk in the park, but I genuinily enjoyed studying the subject. Now physics? Yeah I couldn't really care less how far a ball travels before it hits the ground.

 

[libertyyne]

It seems like there are two distinct group of people, people who hate orgo ( these people like or find physics bearable) . And people who love orgo( these folks find physics unbearable) .

 

[Mad Jack]

It seems like there are two distinct group of people, people who hate orgo ( these people like or find physics bearable) . And people who love orgo( these folks find physics unbearable) .

I think it might be a divide largely based upon the nature of each field- one is highly mathematical, the other is highly conceptual with far less math involved. I've always been a concepts guy and hated the "This equation works because it works" nature of physics. Yeah, if you're a physics major and are very strong with math, it probably starts to feel conceptual, but the intro courses aren't so much.

 

[pseud0]

The science behind both physics and orgo is incredible. I HATED the way Orgo was taught and found the way physics was taught acceptable. The orgo teachers i had just seemed out to fail you and were massive dicks that thought they were the hottest thing ever and just wanted to get back to their research.

 

[libertyyne]

I think it might be a divide largely based upon the nature of each field- one is highly mathematical, the other is highly conceptual with far less math involved. I've always been a concepts guy and hated the "This equation works because it works" nature of physics. Yeah, if you're a physics major and are very strong with math, it probably starts to feel conceptual, but the intro courses aren't so much.

I appreciated the logic behind it. Deriving some of those formulas is probably the thing that helped me the most gaining a conceptual understanding of physics. Orgo just didn't click with me. I don't know if it is the level that is taught that is too cursory or if there truly are more exceptions then rules.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

I appreciated the logic behind it. Deriving some of those formulas is probably the thing that helped me the most gaining a conceptual understanding of physics. Orgo just didn't click with me. I don't know if it is the level that is taught that is too cursory or if there truly are more exceptions then rules.

Exactly. Many physics prereq courses feel that way because they are algebra based. You cannot really get too conceptual without calculus.

 

[hurtem&healem]

I think it might be a divide largely based upon the nature of each field- one is highly mathematical, the other is highly conceptual with far less math involved. I've always been a concepts guy and hated the "This equation works because it works" nature of physics. Yeah, if you're a physics major and are very strong with math, it probably starts to feel conceptual, but the intro courses aren't so much.

I disagree to an extent. I had different orgo teachers for first and second semester, at two different universities, and both of those classes were almost entirely memorization. Of course understanding the concepts was important, but when it came down to it you just needed to know which reagents yield what products with given reactants.

Physics, on the other hand, was, in my mind, almost entirely concept driven. Essentially, "Here are three rules that govern everything in the universe (kinda, but we'll stick with that model). Here are a handful of formulas that describe those laws. Now let's explore how we can apply these laws to real life situations."

I loved physics because I could just logic my way through even the most difficult questions on an exam. Whereas in chem--and almost all bio classes--if you didn't have a piece memorized then you were screwed. I "get" things in a big picture sense very easily. I do not memorize seemingly unrelated facts nearly as well. My second semester of biochem is the only class that rivals my love of physics because all those unrelated pieces from the previous couple years finally started to come together to make some sense, and the professor did a great job of creating exams that tested your conceptual understanding rather than just reciting facts--think, "Why?" rather than "What?"

 

[Mad Jack]

I disagree to an extent. I had different orgo teachers for first and second semester, at two different universities, and both of those classes were almost entirely memorization. Of course understanding the concepts was important, but when it came down to it you just needed to know which reagents yield what products with given reactants.

Physics, on the other hand, was, in my mind, almost entirely concept driven. Essentially, "Here are three rules that govern everything in the universe (kinda, but we'll stick with that model). Here are a handful of formulas that describe those laws. Now let's explore how we can apply these laws to real life situations."

I loved physics because I could just logic my way through even the most difficult questions on an exam. Whereas in chem--and almost all bio classes--if you didn't have a piece memorized then you were screwed. I "get" things in a big picture sense very easily. I do not memorize seemingly unrelated facts nearly as well. My second semester of biochem is the only class that rivals my love of physics because all those unrelated pieces from the previous couple years finally started to come together to make some sense, and the professor did a great job of creating exams that tested your conceptual understanding rather than just reciting facts--think, "Why?" rather than "What?"

If you actually read about why the different reagents react the way they do with different substances under different conditions, it all starts to make sense though. It's only random facts if you don't read about the science behind it (which many people don't, and I think that's why they have such a tough time with organic chemistry).

 

[aldol16]

Yeah, I get what you're saying. But $200 that wasn't yours is different from points on a test. It's just a matter of principle to me. If I'm the prof and I screwed up on the test and gave some people extra points, I'm not taking them back.

Yeah, I get that on the professor's end but that's not what I was talking about. I'm talking about student end here. But on the professor's side, the professors I TAed under never took points back either. Actually, some of the students I've had that stand out most to me were those who had gotten the question wrong but it was marked right and they actually came up to me after class and pointed it out. I said, "It's your lucky day!" Their honesty made an impression on me and if one of them had asked me for a letter, that would have gone into it as an example.

 

[aldol16]

I disagree to an extent. I had different orgo teachers for first and second semester, at two different universities, and both of those classes were almost entirely memorization. Of course understanding the concepts was important, but when it came down to it you just needed to know which reagents yield what products with given reactants.

I think you're approaching organic chemistry the wrong way. What's important is top-down processing - knowing which connections and disconnections to make and when to make them - not bottom-up processing - memorizing the reagents and trying various combinations in a synthesis. I award most points allotted if a student can make the right connections in a synthesis even if they don't know the specific reagents to do so. In research, you always go and look them up. There's no point in memorizing all the reagents and solvents needed because now, with the power of search engines and databases, we can find any known reaction we want with just a click of a button - all reagents, solvents, and procedures included!

I see can how organic chemistry can be difficult if you approach it by memorizing all the possible reactions you learn and what reagents you need for them. But organic chemistry actually is very mathematical. We just don't teach it that way because pre-meds tend to hate math and organic chemistry, for some reason, has just become a pre-med class. Physical organic chemistry is usually taught as an upper-level, if not graduate, course. It deals with the often complex rates you see in organic reactions, kinetic isotope efffects, Hammett plots, the Hammond postulate, etc.

 

[Lawpy]

I think you're approaching organic chemistry the wrong way. What's important is top-down processing - knowing which connections and disconnections to make and when to make them - not bottom-up processing - memorizing the reagents and trying various combinations in a synthesis. I award most points allotted if a student can make the right connections in a synthesis even if they don't know the specific reagents to do so. In research, you always go and look them up. There's no point in memorizing all the reagents and solvents needed because now, with the power of search engines and databases, we can find any known reaction we want with just a click of a button - all reagents, solvents, and procedures included!

I see can how organic chemistry can be difficult if you approach it by memorizing all the possible reactions you learn and what reagents you need for them. But organic chemistry actually is very mathematical. We just don't teach it that way because pre-meds tend to hate math and organic chemistry, for some reason, has just become a pre-med class. Physical organic chemistry is usually taught as an upper-level, if not graduate, course. It deals with the often complex rates you see in organic reactions, kinetic isotope efffects, Hammett plots, the Hammond postulate, etc.

Hammett acidity function that replaced the pH concept for extremely strong acids was also really confusing stuff.

And I found out that magic acid really isn't all that magic

 

[aldol16]

Hammett acidity function that replaced the pH concept for extremely strong acids was also really confusing stuff.

Well, that would require a thermodynamics course to understand well. You'd have to really understand the meaning of activity and many graduate students even don't have a good grasp of it (myself included).

 

[hurtem&healem]

I think you're approaching organic chemistry the wrong way. What's important is top-down processing - knowing which connections and disconnections to make and when to make them - not bottom-up processing - memorizing the reagents and trying various combinations in a synthesis..

This is what people try to sell about ochem, and it's how I approached it at first. That was a massive disservice, IMO. It lead me to spend far too much study time concentrating on the underlying principles when I could have just memorized the reactions and done better in the classes with less effort. Now, down the line, my understanding may have been to some advantage with the style of questions on the MCAT, but it was very inefficient for the course.

If I had only studied at one institution I would chalk this up to that. But I had the same experience with two professors who had very different teaching styles.

There's no point in memorizing all the reagents and solvents needed because now, with the power of search engines and databases, we can find any known reaction we want with just a click of a button - all reagents, solvents, and procedures included!

The same can be said of most exam questions in most undergrad classes, but that's a whole other conversation.

 

[JustAPhD]

This is what people try to sell about ochem, and it's how I approached it at first. That was a massive disservice, IMO. It lead me to spend far too much study time concentrating on the underlying principles when I could have just memorized the reactions and done better in the classes with less effort. Now, down the line, my understanding may have been to some advantage with the style of questions on the MCAT, but it was very inefficient for the course.

If I had only studied at one institution I would chalk this up to that. But I had the same experience with two professors who had very different teaching styles.



The same can be said of most exam questions in most undergrad classes, but that's a whole other conversation.

I wouldn't call it a disservice. That is *usually* the best way to learn OChem. Sure you can brute memorize everything but for the majority of people that is a strategy that simply doesn't work very well. When someone comes to me asking how they can improve in OChem my very first question every time is "are you trying to just memorize everything?"

 

[pseud0]

the pushing electrons around and stuff you should be able to do intuitively. Whether reagent X will only be able to get your compound to an alcohol or if it will take it all the way to an aldehyde is something you should memorize.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Yeah, I get that on the professor's end but that's not what I was talking about. I'm talking about student end here. But on the professor's side, the professors I TAed under never took points back either. Actually, some of the students I've had that stand out most to me were those who had gotten the question wrong but it was marked right and they actually came up to me after class and pointed it out. I said, "It's your lucky day!" Their honesty made an impression on me and if one of them had asked me for a letter, that would have gone into it as an example.

Oh, I see what you're saying. You don't support the feeling of entitlement many students seem to have. On that, I agree 100000%.

 

[aldol16]

Oh, I see what you're saying. You don't support the feeling of entitlement many students seem to have. On that, I agree 100000%.

Exactly. It's okay to feel a little sad because points were taken away. But it's not okay to get mad because you feel that you were entitled to those points just because the professor made a mistake in grading at first. Just like how I hate it when students come in after they get their exams back and try to argue for a few more points here and there because they simply felt like their explanations deserved more points. No rationale whatsoever besides "Oh, I'm entitled to getting a higher grade."

 

[aldol16]

This is what people try to sell about ochem, and it's how I approached it at first. That was a massive disservice, IMO. It lead me to spend far too much study time concentrating on the underlying principles when I could have just memorized the reactions and done better in the classes with less effort. Now, down the line, my understanding may have been to some advantage with the style of questions on the MCAT, but it was very inefficient for the course.

If I had only studied at one institution I would chalk this up to that. But I had the same experience with two professors who had very different teaching styles.

It seems like either your two experiences were simply with professors who didn't care about you learning the concepts or you just had problems connecting the underlying principles with the information you already knew. Let me ask you: on your exams, were the synthesis questions like you were given a target structure and you were asked to design a synthesis using simple starting materials or were the structures of all the intermediates already given and you had to fill in the reagents needed to accomplish the transformations shown?

 

[kb1900]

Exactly. It's okay to feel a little sad because points were taken away. But it's not okay to get mad because you feel that you were entitled to those points just because the professor made a mistake in grading at first. Just like how I hate it when students come in after they get their exams back and try to argue for a few more points here and there because they simply felt like their explanations deserved more points. No rationale whatsoever besides "Oh, I'm entitled to getting a higher grade."

i also ta but not for orgo and get SO fking frustrated with the entitlement of many students. especially those who are right in the middle of the pack or below average. most of these students dont even put in half the effort of what the top students put in.

anyway, "i will accept a regrade til the day i day" was the motto of our orgo professor.

however after talking with him about that policy he mentioned that it really is about 50% that end up with the same grade after a regrade. 20% do better. 30% do worse.

and tbf that makes sense if the graders are not extremely biased in how they grade. they should be make errors in both directions to some degree (missing an error vs false positive errors)

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Exactly. It's okay to feel a little sad because points were taken away. But it's not okay to get mad because you feel that you were entitled to those points just because the professor made a mistake in grading at first. Just like how I hate it when students come in after they get their exams back and try to argue for a few more points here and there because they simply felt like their explanations deserved more points. No rationale whatsoever besides "Oh, I'm entitled to getting a higher grade."

The only time I have ever argued for a point was when it was the difference between a perfect exam or not, and only when I felt that both answers were correct. I think I've done that twice, and the profs agreed that they were poorly-worded questions and gave the entire class the extra points.

 

[aldol16]

however after talking with him about that policy he mentioned that it really is about 50% that end up with the same grade after a regrade. 20% do better. 30% do worse.

See, this would set off the pre-meds I taught. "What?!! I could get points taken away on a regrade???" They seem perfectly content to waste my time arguing for a few points when they have no rationale to do so but they become risk-averse when they learn that points could be taken away if the initial grading was erroneous. Because they feel entitled to all of the points they got in the first grading, regardless of whether they actually deserved them.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

See, this would set off the pre-meds I taught. "What?!! I could get points taken away on a regrade???" They seem perfectly content to waste my time arguing for a few points when they have no rationale to do so but they become risk-averse when they learn that points could be taken away if the initial grading was erroneous. Because they feel entitled to all of the points they got in the first grading, regardless of whether they actually deserved them.

I don't think they get the concept of a regrading.

 

[sullen-burger]

Physics in college was the first experience with physics. High school level was a joke, looking back. Aaaaand, I dove into calc-based fizziks because well A) most my friends from a previous class went that route and B) I thought I could breeze by without putting in that much work. Hahahah no.

So yea, I definitely had the least amount of base knowledge in physics and let's face facts; sophomore year I was much more interested in scoring with girls than labeling my forces.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Physics in college was the first experience with physics. High school level was a joke, looking back. Aaaaand, I dove into calc-based fizziks because well A) most my friends from a previous class went that route and B) I thought I could breeze by without putting in that much work. Hahahah no.

So yea, I definitely had the least amount of base knowledge in physics and let's face facts; sophomore year I was much more interested in scoring with girls than labeling my forces.

Yeah, but as soon as you find the girl, you'd lose the ability to find the momentum.

 

[tessellations]

I will say, part of the reason I found organic II harder than physics was because my physics professor (same guy for both I and II) made it SO easy to do well in his class. Everyone loved him for it, but I was not a fan because he didn't really care about teaching at all. I got very little out of both classes, especially the second semester. Also he was the type of person who played it off as if he didn't care about what others thought about him, but he clearly cared about what his students thought about him. He was weirdly cynical and talked a lot about his Canadian redneck upbringing. Interesting guy with an interesting story, but a terrible professor. While the classes were an easy A, I will have to teach myself a lot for the MCAT.