<p>I think Chicago students who took chem could CERTAINLY speak more to this, but in the sciences, I think Chicago professors value Chicago students taking certain principles and applying them in new ways on tests. This contrasts what’s taught in other schools, where the emphasis is more on rote memorization, and doing the same sorts of problems found in problem sets on tests as well. In short, Chicago chem deepens your understanding and knowledge of the subject matter by creating innovative problems on the exams. At other schools, its more of a rote process. </p>
<p>Moreover, the professors in the dept. set the bar high, and they only want to reward exceptional success. So the curve when I was at Chicago was set to around a C or C+, and in terms of raw percentage, the avg. student was getting maybe 40% of the material right on a given exam. It facilitates a lot of self doubt because, not only are you getting a low grade (around a C), but your also only get a minority of questions right on the exam. I think at other schools, given grade inflation, even in hard classes such as Chem, the curve is set around a B or so. </p>
<p>I’m not sure why Chem is the outlier here. Physics and Bio at Chicago were always FINE. Physics offered a manageable track for pre-professional students, and I didn’t really hear many complaints about Bio. For some reason, Chem and O-Chem at Chicago were the two brutal subjects. I’m not sure why, perhaps traditionally and historically, that dept. just held itself to a higher standard?</p>