Why do people say you're learning O-chem wrong if you memorize?

[ZaneKaiser]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I'm always hearing that if you're brute-force memorizing organic chem you're doing it wrong. But for many classes, especially Organic II, this is not the case. It's nice to pretend that it's about understanding, and perhaps the reality of the field is different, but there is no other realistic way to do well in an undergraduate course on our midterms and finals because obviously you have to learn a lot of names of reactions. Yes, I understand that if you can conceptually master the way electrons behave and understand the properties of functional groups you will have an easier time, but you will still have to memorize a boatload to ace the midterms and finals.

 

[WedgeDawg]

If you think about it, nearly everything in organic (especially the latter half) is just a variation on a theme, and if you can deconstruct the mechanism by which the theme works, you can conceivably adapt it to nearly every situation that you would see in an undergraduate level organic class. If the only thing you are doing is surface-level memorization, you're failing to take into account these underlying patterns that could make your life a lot easier.

Really, success in organic is founded up on your ability to learn a relatively large amount of information, discern the similarities that exist among these reactions, structures, etc, and then synthesize and apply that information on exams where it would be most useful. So it's both memorization and understanding, and neither one is going to result in success without the other.

I don't know about your organic sequence, but our exams (particularly in second term) were comprised mostly of problems that were similar to but not quite the same as the specific reactions we had studied, so if a student had only memorized the reactions without knowing why each reaction occurred, they would be SOL on the exam. Similarly, when doing a synthesis problem, you have to know what reaction produces what outcome, but you also have to know when it's appropriate to use a particular reaction given the initial conditions.

Memorization + understanding + proper application = success

 

[Conflagration]

In my UG, one professor teaches Organic I as 13 separate reactions to memorize.

I had Organic I with a different professor, who taught the mechanisms first, and when I told my friend who was taking it with the 13-reaction lady, it was like night and day. Her grade went up 15 points on their third exam, and she scored well enough on the final to pass, when she was failing the previous two tests with 40s.

I personally don't get why you'd go through all that memorization if you could pick up the four mechanisms and run with them.

 

[AtticaM]

Even as a lowly undergrad whose only great study skill is memorization, I feel that Organic Chemistry involves a lot more than just regurgitation. The previous posters are right in that many of the reactions can be grouped together as having similar properties and mechanisms. There's a difference between flash cards (well they might work for some people, but not for me) and actually understanding some of the reasoning behind why this particular mechanism occurs--even if it's as simple as "this atom in the molecule is electrophilic".

My teachers always focused a ton on application too--the usual "being so familiar with a reaction that you can string together a complex synthesis." Brute force memorization doesn't help so much as practicing different scenarios with a reaction.

Of course, the reality is that there is definitely memorization involved. But it's not /just/ memorization (hello, history and your stupid dates).

 

[Chansey]

After 4 years of college, I've learned that "You don't need to memorize" is a lie professors tell students to lower the class average.

If a teacher tells you not to memorize something, it's a clue that you should memorize it.

 

[FutureOncologist]

There's a theme to it. If you can recognize (learn) why electrons push a certain way, then you can learn future mechanisms easily.

A tutor that the school provided for free taught us how to recognize what products were formed by knowing how the reactants acted. This boosted my grades up one whole letter grade from a C- to a B- in Organic II. I know a B- is short of anything great, but I honestly was considering changing my career path because of how poorly I was doing.

 

[625233]

After 4 years of college, I've learned that "You don't need to memorize" is a lie professors tell students to lower the class average.

If a teacher tells you not to memorize something, it's a clue that you should memorize it.

Concur 100 and 10 foking percent.

 

[efle]

At many schools near-perfect memorization of all mechanisms/reagents/etc is expected of every student, and what spreads out the curve is performance on questions like "here's an initial and final product, propose an original arrow pushing mechanism" which ends up having 8 steps and requires more problem solving and reasoning than memorization. Anybody who says it's wrong to memorize in Ochem is full of BS, but doing well in Ochem is not a memory-based task

 

[mehc012]

Wrong? Not really...there is no right and wrong here, just 'learning the material' or 'getting the grade' (note: these are not the same thing).

However, if that's your method, you're doing it the hard way, and it's going to show more and more as the material you cover becomes more advanced.
If you're just trying to get through the prereqs, you'll survive. You'll put in a bit more work and get less understanding out of it, but you'll do fine grade-wise.
If you actually want to learn organic chemistry (it was my major...I swear there are some of us out there!) you'll learn pretty quickly that while there is a certain level of brute memorization, if you skip the 'learn the concepts' part you will hit a ceiling somewhere.

For my part, I always had to memorize which reactions were in the toolbox, as well as certain reagents/protecting groups, etc. But I never bothered to memorize the mechanisms...if you can see the start and end products and the concepts are ingrained, it's usually fairly easy to piece out the electron movements which lead up to it.

 

[Silverflash]

Agree with @mehc012. It's not the wrong way; there is no wrong way. It's just the hard way. I speak from experience: Ochem 1 didn't click with me at all and I had to get through it via rote memorization. It was one of the hardest classes I've ever taken. About a third of the way through Ochem 2, though, I suddenly "got it" conceptually and it became a much more manageable subject.

In the end, though, learn the way that works best for you.

 

[AlbinoHawk DO]

I'm always hearing that if you're brute-force memorizing organic chem you're doing it wrong. But for many classes, especially Organic II, this is not the case. It's nice to pretend that it's about understanding, and perhaps the reality of the field is different, but there is no other realistic way to do well in an undergraduate course on our midterms and finals because obviously you have to learn a lot of names of reactions. Yes, I understand that if you can conceptually master the way electrons behave and understand the properties of functional groups you will have an easier time, but you will still have to memorize a boatload to ace the midterms and finals.

Here's a secret: use whatever study strategy gets you the best grade. Personally, I believe it is a combination of understanding and memorizing.

 

[swindoll]

There're so many possible variations an orgo mechanism could be asked that it's just not possible to memorize a number of mechanisms and do well on an exam. At least, it's not possible with certain professors. I'm sure if you have an easy(ier) professor, you can get by with memorization. My recommendation is that you learn it, not memorize it.

 

[aegistitan]

There's a theme to it. If you can recognize (learn) why electrons push a certain way, then you can learn future mechanisms easily.

I agree 100%. It is unfortunate that many undergraduate courses (at least what I've witnessed) do not focus on the WHY aspect, which is much easier to conceptualize after learning molecular orbital theory. I was lucky enough to take an o-chem class that began by teaching us what molecular orbital theory was about, and applying it to different reactions, that allowed us to be able to conceptually understand why certain reactions happen a certain way, and why certain reactions don't; unfortunately molecular orbital theory begins breaking down when you reach period 3 and above, but being able to work with it for period 2 is quite handy.

But at the end of the day as long as you get the grade who cares how you approach o-chem? It's being phased off the MCAT and has little to no significance in your future life as a clinician.

 

[FutureOncologist]

I agree 100%. It is unfortunate that many undergraduate courses (at least what I've witnessed) do not focus on the WHY aspect, which is much easier to conceptualize after learning molecular orbital theory. I was lucky enough to take an o-chem class that began by teaching us what molecular orbital theory was about, and applying it to different reactions, that allowed us to be able to conceptually understand why certain reactions happen a certain way, and why certain reactions don't; unfortunately molecular orbital theory begins breaking down when you reach period 3 and above, but being able to work with it for period 2 is quite handy.

But at the end of the day as long as you get the grade who cares how you approach o-chem? It's being phased off the MCAT and has little to no significance in your future life as a clinician.

I had no idea it was being phased out. I thought the whole idea of learning o-chem (other than being able to learn biochemistry much faster) was to show medical schools you can learn 200+ concepts and be able to use them analytically. I hated o-chem, don't get me wrong, but it really showed how much I could learn and use within all of chemistry.

Edit: Where does it say that o-chem is being phased out? Legitimately curious.

 

[PlasticBag]

Sure, you need to understand the basics (how mechanisms work in general, what's a good leaving group, etc) but beyond that memorization is immensely helpful. I didn't start doing okay in ochem until I started actually memorizing reagents, solvents, what happens first in a mechanism, etc. Really, I think I actually began to understand more as I made flashcards and memorized them. Maybe it's because this way I was forced to learn things out of context which in turn made me see patterns.

so for those who feel hopeless with ochem as I did: memorize, memorize, memorize

 

[mehc012]

I agree 100%. It is unfortunate that many undergraduate courses (at least what I've witnessed) do not focus on the WHY aspect, which is much easier to conceptualize after learning molecular orbital theory. I was lucky enough to take an o-chem class that began by teaching us what molecular orbital theory was about, and applying it to different reactions, that allowed us to be able to conceptually understand why certain reactions happen a certain way, and why certain reactions don't; unfortunately molecular orbital theory begins breaking down when you reach period 3 and above, but being able to work with it for period 2 is quite handy.

But at the end of the day as long as you get the grade who cares how you approach o-chem? It's being phased off the MCAT and has little to no significance in your future life as a clinician.

It's being phased out only in the sense that adding a bunch of extra material and leaving the amount of orgo at a similar level to now decreases the percentage of the test which is about orgo.

I haven't seen any plans from AAMC to eliminate organic chemistry entirely, they just increased the total amount of material on the test and supposedly changed the question style (more like the questions are pretty much the same, only they started classifying them all now and deciding that they demonstrate some special skills.)

I have yet to see any course material which provides such a good parallel to medicine as organic synthesis/compound characterization: starting with a problem and an array of seemingly disconnected, memorizable tests, mechanisms, and explanations, you must find what the situation is. You then have to plot through a series of balanced steps to get to your desired end state, all while keeping in mind that altering one aspect may cause unforeseen changes or problems elsewhere.
It's a giant logic puzzle where you memorize a large set of possible actions and then try to apply them to reach your goal while correcting for any collateral damage along the way. Some memorization is necessary, sure, but what really matters is how you put it all together.

 

[aegistitan]

I had no idea it was being phased out. I thought the whole idea of learning o-chem (other than being able to learn biochemistry much faster) was to show medical schools you can learn 200+ concepts and be able to use them analytically. I hated o-chem, don't get me wrong, but it really showed how much I could learn and use within all of chemistry.

Edit: Where does it say that o-chem is being phased out? Legitimately curious.

By phased out I meant less emphasis on. Just search around SDN, this is a thread from 2008 http://forums.studentdoctor.net/threads/just-how-much-organic-chemistry-is-on-the-mcat.517186/

Moreover, ochem 2 is no longer a requirement for many med schools, johns hopkins is I believe one of them? This will set the precedent for less focus on ochem

 

[mehc012]

By phased out I meant less emphasis on. Just search around SDN, this is a thread from 2008 http://forums.studentdoctor.net/threads/just-how-much-organic-chemistry-is-on-the-mcat.517186/

Moreover, ochem 2 is no longer a requirement for many med schools, johns hopkins is I believe one of them? This will set the precedent for less focus on ochem

I didn't search SDN, I searched AAMC and read through their 'what is on the exam' information.
Orgo is still 15% of the science material on the exam. Sure, that's less then Gen Chem (30%), though I'd argue that the distinction isn't perfectly clear between the two, or Physics (25%)...but introductory Biology is listed as only 5% and nobody is talking about how Bio is phased out. Fact is, people want Orgo to be phased out because they don't want to learn it, but nothing the AAMC has said to date indicates a plan to dispense of it entirely. It's just wishful thinking.

Schools are starting to phase out super-detailed prerequisite courses in general. It is now more and more common for schools to have minimal or even no specific prerequisite courses. This makes particular sense when you realize how prohibitively long the list of subjects on the MCAT has become - if they kept the previous trend of requiring the MCAT courses and possibly some extras, they'd practically be defining a major. Some places are getting rid of all prereqs in one fell swoop - check out UMich's Class of 2017 reqs. Others are simply trimming the fat, paring the required coursework down slowly without effecting drastic change.

 

[FutureOncologist]

By phased out I meant less emphasis on. Just search around SDN, this is a thread from 2008 http://forums.studentdoctor.net/threads/just-how-much-organic-chemistry-is-on-the-mcat.517186/

Moreover, ochem 2 is no longer a requirement for many med schools, johns hopkins is I believe one of them? This will set the precedent for less focus on ochem

You're correct with JHU. But it doesn't make sense to me that you can just take orgo 1 and then somehow skip orgo 2 to take a semester of biochemistry. I'd imagine that most schools (well, my undergrad at least) wouldn't allow that since biochemistry uses almost every single o-chem concepts from orgo II

 

[ciruji]

You're correct with JHU. But it doesn't make sense to me that you can just take orgo 1 and then somehow skip orgo 2 to take a semester of biochemistry. I'd imagine that most schools (well, my undergrad at least) wouldn't allow that since biochemistry uses almost every single o-chem concepts from orgo II

one word... liberals...

 

[mehc012]

By phased out I meant less emphasis on. Just search around SDN, this is a thread from 2008 http://forums.studentdoctor.net/threads/just-how-much-organic-chemistry-is-on-the-mcat.517186/

Moreover, ochem 2 is no longer a requirement for many med schools, johns hopkins is I believe one of them? This will set the precedent for less focus on ochem

Also, the conclusion of that thread is actually 'a random variable amount, just like any subject, but never left out entirely. Sometimes one passage, sometimes several plus some discretes.' AND it's hardly a meaningful sample.

Even if it were strictly just one passage, that doesn't change the amount of material which they have available to choose from when asking questions on that passage...I don't know about you, but I did not take the MCAT thinking it was OK to flounder on an entire passage.

 

[FutureOncologist]

Some places are getting rid of all prereqs in one fell swoop - check out UMich's Class of 2017 reqs.

I just read it. They seem to be side-stepping what classes are needed to be taken.

• A strong biological background with an emphasis on human physiology, cell bio, and genetics
  
• Biochemistry, organic and inorganic chemistry with an emphasis on kinetics, enzymatic reactions, and protein structure/function
• A basic understanding of physics, esp. in thermodynamics and fluid dynamics, though specific physics courses on such concepts are not required
  
• Statistical analysis
  
• Intellectual inquiry and a drive for new knowledge
  
• Ethical inquiry

This really translates to:

• Cell biology, physiology, and genetics. This in itself is 12-15 hours, but with general biology, it is actually 20-24 hours (with labs.)*
• General, organic, and biochemistry. With labs, you're looking at 19-22 hours*
• Physics or Physical Chemistry. Depending on the school, you can take the latter without physics. So, barring prereqs (calculus and chemistry), that's 3-5 hours*.
• Statistics (3 hours.)
• Upper level courses (presumably within your major, as well as other advanced biology, physics, and humanities.) If you were to make it into a minor, it'd be more convenient. So 18-22 hours*.
• Sociology, psychology, anthropology, and/or ethical classes. 3-9 hours*.

* = rough estimate

Depending on who you ask, this could be easier, or harder, for premeds that are looking at this school when applying. To me, this is a cornerstone of the new face of premed requirements. Instead of making copy/paste premeds, schools will be emphasizing uniqueness and better understanding of how the world turns.

 

[mehc012]

I just read it. They seem to be side-stepping what classes are needed to be taken.

• A strong biological background with an emphasis on human physiology, cell bio, and genetics
  
• Biochemistry, organic and inorganic chemistry with an emphasis on kinetics, enzymatic reactions, and protein structure/function
• A basic understanding of physics, esp. in thermodynamics and fluid dynamics, though specific physics courses on such concepts are not required
  
• Statistical analysis
  
• Intellectual inquiry and a drive for new knowledge
  
• Ethical inquiry

This really translates to:

• Cell biology, physiology, and genetics. This in itself is 12-15 hours, but with general biology, it is actually 20-24 hours (with labs.)*
• General, organic, and biochemistry. With labs, you're looking at 19-22 hours*
• Physics or Physical Chemistry. Depending on the school, you can take the latter without physics. So, barring prereqs (calculus and chemistry), that's 3-5 hours*.
• Statistics (3 hours.)
• Upper level courses (presumably within your major, as well as other advanced biology, physics, and humanities.) If you were to make it into a minor, it'd be more convenient. So 18-22 hours*.
• Sociology, psychology, anthropology, and/or ethical classes. 3-9 hours*.

* = rough estimate

Depending on who you ask, this could be easier, or harder, for premeds that are looking at this school when applying. To me, this is a cornerstone of the new face of premed requirements. Instead of making copy/paste premeds, schools will be emphasizing uniqueness and better understanding of how the world turns.

The point being that they are not requiring specific courses. They are saying 'you should know these things, in general, in order to be prepared...but we're not dictating how you manage it.' There's no indication that they would require labs or anything of the sort. They even state that, while you should make sure you understand physics concepts, you don't need to acquire that knowledge through a class.

The new requirements (which I found with slightly different wording than what you have) essentially say take a bunch of Bio and Chem, do research, and at least self-teach the stuff that will be on the MCAT. Oh, and throw in one social science course as well.

This is a HUGE departure from explicitly listing the specific courses and labs they want and chucking your app if you don't hit all of those boxes.

If you rock the MCAT, which ostensibly contains all of those subjects, they'd be hard pressed to prove that you do not have the background they list. They allow the flexibility to fulfill these knowledge requirements however you like, even linking you to CourseRA (a free online learning site). Maybe you acquired your stats on the fly in your research lab. Maybe you got it taking Psych stats. Maybe you AP'd out of the intro level Bio courses and decided to take a bunch of Physiology courses and some Biochem. The official website I found phrased the Chem requirements as "chemistry that encompasses core concepts of biochemistry and biologically applicable elements of inorganic and organic chemistry such as enzymatic reactions and principles of protein structure and function." To me, that translates to 'if you can understand biochem without Orgo, go for it.'
The point is, it's not set in stone, as has been the tradition thus far.

 

[Promethean]

one word... liberals...

What is that supposed to mean?