@BiffBrown : I know the chemistry department extremely well and those in it (so am highly aware of the “proposed” changes as told to me by old mentor and favorite instructor. These are still proposed). Regardless, it doesn’t matter. Consider this, some instructors, as of now, already pitch their courses at certain levels, incorporating material not covered at all in other sections, namely Soria and Weinschenk. And most of the others choose to water their courses down quite a bit. In reality, instructors will still do whatever they want, especially tenure track instructors (those designing this curriculum have absolutely no control over tenure track folks as some are lecture track).
It will mainly be Dr. Weinschenk incorporating that aspect. Also, physical organic concepts need not include that much advanced math (in fact, it need not include it all, and neither does pchem. Pchem can theoretically be covered and tested at a conceptual level). Simply covering molecular orbital theory in the context of organic (which Soria and Weinschenk already do, but W does in more detail) and adding some kinetics is required to call it “physical organic”(physical organic courses often focus more on kinetics than anything else, and if one’s algebra and data interpretation skills are fine…you’ll live). These are actually typical components of a rigorous organic course.
Also, I think your interpretation of how classes are run when it comes to orgo and up in the chem department are off-base. Unlike general chemistry, there is essentially no syllabus. There are merely very basic guidelines of what should be covered per semester that they kind of agree to. Easier/medium level instructors stick to the book/these basic guidelines(sometimes lower) and those in the upper-range deviate to do whatever they want (W/S don’t really even employ the book that much and certainly don’t have a set syllabus displaying specific topics. They have a plan that unveils as the course goes along). They switch things around, add new stuff, or drop stuff every year. Also, the ochem syllabi are hardly "“packed”. Chemistry 221 is much more about key concepts and chem 222 is often different variants of the same reaction over and over again, so you shouldn’t view this as a super content intensive course like general chemistry or general biology. If you view it that way, I gaurantee you will study for it incorrectly, especially in the case you take a top instructor. They don’t want you to focus so much on factoids and every little reaction as much as a concept, problem solving methods, or ways of thinking through things (ideally, you just memorize a few things per unit and then begin applying it ASAP…it isn’t like biology where often the memorization is the endgoal and will suffice). I know most STEM instructors at these schools claim that, but I would say maybe 1/2 of Emory’s ochem instructors really mean it. So worry less about “keeping up” with a packed syllabus and worry more about understanding and developing a logic that can be applied to several cases. I would not fear any so called changes to that course.
The way it is taught and the hieracrchy of instructors will probably mostly be the same except more normalized toward the way Soria and Weinschenk teach (larger consideration of MO theory and or deeper structure function relationships and catalysis. This is nothing new to those who took either one of those instructors) it currently. And honestly, I think this makes sense considering that I find the variability in quality and rigor of the sections unfair as it is now (like comparing S/W versus a Jui or Scarborough is night and day. The level of depth of understanding and problem solving required to be successful in the latter two is almost criminal for Emory and is instead more reminiscent of other “not even close to peer” schools or peers with ochem instructors that make their courses more similar to biology courses, content/memorization intensive and less problem solving oriented). The best they can do is at least all cover some unifying principles. The proposal is more so a framework of achieving that sort of normalization I believe. The only thing I don’t believe is that it will work.