I had an interesting conversation today with a student about the coverage in my major's organic lecture. Specifically, we were discussing the relative coverage of synthesis verses mechanism in the course. My friends at the local RO1 institution offer a very synthesis focused course, which is reflected in their exams which generally offer less opportunity for partial credit than my more mechanism focused exams. Since graduate students grade the exams there is some value in being able to present reaction and synthesis questions which will have single correct answers rather than sorting through the mechanism arrows and rationalizations about relative reactivity.
Since I have been reading a lot of articles about demands for a more career-ready graduate from community colleges and four-year schools I have been thinking this afternoon about my course and the career readiness and biochemistry course readiness of my students. The biochem issue comes up since this is the next course on the sequence to the degree.
An understanding of mechanism serves the student in moving on to graduate school, but does it have value in the career world? Synthesis has value if you are working in organic synthesis and helps in the biochem cycles, but does it have value beyond that? Lets face it, many of the reactions we cover in the one-year Organic are not used in the real world of chemistry.
Since the semester will be ending soon and I have the summer to reorganize for the Fall, and I am using a new text I will be reorganizing my course anyway. So, I pose the question for the audience. What should we cover in the majors one-year organic course lecture and lab? Or, what knowledge should we impart on our students in such a course.
I am interested to know your thoughts.
T.S. Hall
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In a perfect world, I think that mechanisms should be the focus for the majors one-year course lecture and lab. However, in that perfect world there would also be an advanced synthesis course that would teach synthesis (i.e. named reactions and such). I know that is not always possible, as some institutions aren't able to offer an advanced course on that topic. This is where things become tricky.
ReplyDeleteI think that an understanding of mechanisms is essential to a total understanding of organic chemistry (as I have learned from experience or rather a lack thereof). In your case, it seems that a 50/50 mix is your only true option. However, I stick with my original thought that mechanisms are the true foundation of organic chemistry. If you provide your students with a strong mechanistic foundation, they will be able to more easily absorb and truly understand synthesis when the time comes.
Josh,
ReplyDeleteI am a synthesis person who is very much mechanism focused, so I don't disagree with you. Being an academic do I wonder how our interest in mechanism serves our career bound graduates.
I was watching the movie "Accepted" the other day and noted that to satisfy a parent the foe-Dean points out that the purpose of college is ensure that the graduate gets a high paying job. With this in mind I wonder how the things we focus our energy on translate to careers success.
IMO, we should occasionally check to make sure we are not out of touch with the outside world. If synthesis is what matters most to them we should take this into account. If we are on target, we can move on to fretting about other things.
Anyway, thanks for your input.
T.S. Hall