@BiffBrown You must actually have several instructors(many folks will take these “new” courses at one time, so 1-2 sections per semester will not suffice. They have to have some folks willing to do it and some not as interested, but will do it to fulfill teaching requirements…that is where the problem comes) willing to teach the new content and at a certain level. Most are not even willing to teach the current/plain gen. chem and organic at the appropriate level or with a special touch as I just explained. Typically the tenure track folks are not very faithful to freshman and sophomore courses and in the past(and currently) and when they do teach them, they tend to pivot in favor of less rigor. They will basically say: “sure I agree to teach this outline” and then do something else or do bare minimum. Their goal is to tend to their research and keep undergraduates out of their face (older faculty that are quite established and often jaded in terms of teaching undergraduates) as much as possible or to gain favor with undergraduates (younger faculty want at least decent teaching evals to avoid any red flags in the tenure process…the easiest way to gain favor is teach ok and make the course easier than it should be…this practice is well known and quite obvious to the point undergrads exploit it). People like Weinschenk are lecturers so teaching and interacting with undergraduates are the primary duty which is why he is rigorous and would likely try to teach a version of physical organic appropriate for freshman/sophomores. The others will water it down (as they do with their classes now) as they suspect students will need a lot more help handling tougher materials and exams than they are willing to provide. It would be very optimistic to think that most instructors will yield to a new structure and actually do it purposefully.
To me, it is an excellent concept that would make Emory stand-out and appear serious about training UG’s in science, but I just don’t think it will look so nice in practice. There will be lots of faking it with courses being labelled one thing, but the content being something else/underwhelming versus the advertised content. We aren’t the only to do/try stuff like this. Look at how Northwestern labels its general chemistry courses: http://www.chemistry.northwestern.edu/undergraduate/courses.html
It has special labels, but the content description is identical to a regular general chemistry course. Emory will have fancy names and maybe even a fancy course description, but most or about half of the instructors will probably teach the same content as a standard course in the subject and at a “meh, nothing special” level. If they aren’t faithful to the current recommended standards (seriously not asking for much), then definitely expect nothing if they go up. Curriculum change is a battle at any decent sized school because folks don’t want to comply for some legitimate and some political and/or selfish reasons. I am glad whoever presented it to you was optimistic…but I am more of a realist. The new curric. will be a rough transition. Only LACs and Michigan (Kind of) have pulled off even a shadow of what Emory is attempting now.