I hear your point re leisure studies, but I would have no a priori reason to believe a chemistry major is any better than a history major in terms of critical thinking.
^^doing well in o-chem requires strong reasoning & critical thinking skills. Kids without, usually struggle (and drop premed).
btw: it doesn’t have to be a chem major – an Leisure Studies major with a minor in chem would be strong…
@bluebayou : I wonder how good that CLA test is at testing some skills associated with critical thinking. Maybe it could have some use if its metrics are somewhat valid.
As for the example with ochem: That’s interesting because mainly organic chemistry 1 is applicable for those skills. My digging seems to reveal that organic chemistry 2 at the hands of many instructors can almost boil down to memorizing reaction types and simple mechanisms. It sometimes almost appears as if it is a separate class from ochem 1 (as in you could do well in ochem 2 w/o ochem 1, but there may be a gap in understanding). I say ochem 1 because uniformly there is the stereochemistry unit which is then subsequently linked to various reaction types in the same semester. Most instructors for ochem 2 almost exclude issues of conformation and stereochemistry (the ones that require the most spatial-temporal reasoning) when dealing with the topics: mainly carbonyl chemistry. Most people will likely walk out of ochem 2 thinking that stereochemistry/spatial-temporal reasoning is unimportant to understanding things more closely related to biology (because ochem 1 hardly stresses concepts commonly seen in biology-chemistry of the carbonyl is far more important for understanding biochem than many topics covered in ochem 1). Instructors COULD (and mine did) choose to teach various stereoinduction models for additions to carbonyls but I guess many find it irrelevant for those who won’t go on to major or attempt grad. work in the field which is the bulk of the class at most schools (although I’ve seen cases in which the class for majors did not cover the topic either…luckily places like Harvard and Columbia has instructors that were exceptions). However, some of the same stereoinduction models seem to have analogs in biology, especially those involving metals. Maybe instructors can show students some of that if they don’t want to emphasize those used by synthetic chemists. However, I guess the underlying fact that it is dealing with molecules being presented and addressed as having certain shapes before and after transformation is more the point than what specific skills and concepts are stressed by those teaching it.
small request, bernie, but might you consider using paragraph breaks?
I’ve really been trying to avoid this thread and this line of reasoning - but I can’t do it any more. I’m a trained organic chemist. I’m married to an organic chemist. My best friends are chemists, and I’ve been working in organic and medicinal chemistry for 20+ years. I’ve probably known hundreds of organic chemists who ALL earned an A in organic (if they hadn’t, then why did they become practicing organic chemists?) and I can guarantee you, there’s nothing magical about their/ our “spatial-temporal reasoning.”
Believe me - some chemists are great critical thinkers. Some are truly horrendous. In my experience, a good grade in chemistry does not necessarily indicate a logical, exceptional thinker. There are no short cuts here - a chemistry major is NOT the proxy for smarts that some of you claim.
sheesh.
In MY experience organic chemists tend to be penny-pinchers who like to work with their hands and who are obsessed with fantasy football. Quite a few of them are into woo-woo religions; I had one lab mate who’s a phenomenal chemist but believes in Bigfoot and alien abduction.
See, that’s MY experience. YMMV, but don’t tell me that we’re all rational, logical powerhouses. People - and their intellects - are way more complicated than that.
@Scout50 :Even the quality of thinking in that one area (spatial-temporal) vs. the grade among them probably varies depending on how they were taught the course. Also, I know several ochem instructors who are also great scientists who admitted to earning B’s in the course, so not all have A’s. This is likely school/instructor dependent as well:
For example:
At the same school, these two instructors are similarly revered
http://www.chem.ucla.edu/harding/14D/14D_w14/14D_w14_syl.html#exams
and then there is Garg’s class (I had a link up but the links to the problem sets and assignments are defunct)
I hear Garg is a great lecturer, but it doesn’t appear he assesses “critical thinking” as much. His assessments seem to emphasize things that could easily be memorized and spit out directly. I think he is revered by some for the “entertainment factor”. The Hardinger guy seems to emphasize a deeper conceptual understanding. I am willing to bet that A’s in these 2 are not created equally or at least do not indicate the same type of thinking skills. If I loved problem solving and didn’t mind deeper conceptual thinking, I would take Hardinger if I were at UCLA. If I was better at memorization and wanted a good time, then Garg all the way. And honestly, most sophomore level organic chemistry instructors are probably closer in style to Garg than Hardinger.
There are plenty of exceptions of course but there is a reason many claim that their organic chemistry course was annoying because it came down to memorization of reagents and reactions (as opposed to reasoning by analogy and deriving models/rationale to explain experimental results or trends). One wants to believe they were lying and would have had an easier time with a deeper conceptual understanding, but unfortunately they probably were telling the truth in that the instructor was intentionally or unintentionally signaling that a surface approach was okay.
blue: indeed, the 2nd one could have been broken into 2 I suppose. But the point still stands as shown above. Students without good critical reasoning will struggle in a “good” organic chemistry class. But some organic chemistry instructors basically turn the course into “gen. chem with shapes”. Just memorize the problem type and you’re good.
I’ve never thought of chemistry majors as being required to have highly developed critical thinking skills.
Certainly when I took it, O-Chem was a ton of memorization more than anything else.
Someone who did well in math/physics/CS/analytic philosophy, however, I would expect to have rigorous logic skills.
This review sheet is pretty much the format and style of Garg’s exams and midterms: https://drive.google.com/drive/search?q=14D . Tasks are a bit simple and lack context. Takes very little thought if you memorized some basic concepts or reagents. Hardinger’s appears at least slightly more demanding to me.
Yeah. Physical chemists - they’re the smart guys! And even weirder than the organic chemists…
I would say that that is more consistently true. Again, ochem and gen. chem are all over the place. Whether or not it measures or instills critical thinking skills depends on how you were taught and assessed in those subjects whereas the 3 you mention essentially require development of a sort of logic to understand them to begin with. Applying them is even harder. Chemistry at its most difficult (no matter which subfield) may require high levels of creativity (I find organic and biochemistry quite beautiful in a sense… and doing them often takes quite a bit of predictive power based on some very complex concepts. Natural Product chemistry and drug development are examples of this. Of course the latter, which I am doing, is also very informed by knowledge of physical chemistry) and critical thinking but not many instructors will develop those skills in undergraduates. So while they may be better off than, say most generic biology majors, they may not end up being particularly hot stuff.
@blossom I did not expect a simple explanation to Data as to why I talked about such issues in past threads will start a new front, but I am game.
My understanding is that you recruit for large corporations that want to hire a large number of job applicants, correct? So, you target schools with large numbers of such applicant (based on past experience of success there) for efficiency sake. I understand that. I also understand where Rivera’s elite firms that felt “Brown and Cornell are second tier”are coming from. Then there are MBB consulting firms with their own hiring practices I have mentioned earlier on this thread, Google and their take on hiring etc., etc.,…yes, I got that. They hire differently because they are looking for different things from their hires.
That is not my concern. It is the strata below that, that I am interested in. I don’t remember the last time there was mass hiring from our universities. Niche hiring is the norm even in our best programs. What I am seeing is that most students do not get job offers from campus recruiting, but from competing against unemployed workers of experience in the job market- most employers are only hiring to replace workers who left or are fired.
You would expect with an abundance of talent out there, these employers would be able to hire high quality people with eyes closed, but that is not always the case. I have seen people hired because they look good and sound good, but unable to perform once the rubber meets the road, while more competent ones are left out in the cold, or hired for more junior positions. Naturally, these juniors, after a few years, leave for greener pastures, and the cycle repeats itself. Hubris? Economizing in the wrong place? For someone used to investing, this level of inefficiency is disturbing whatever the reason. That, is the purpose behind the question.
Realistically, labor markets where quality and fit characteristics are highly individualized (for both the employee and employer) are difficult to make efficient, since proxy measures used in hiring (experience, education, interviews, references) may over or underestimate the quality and fit of the potential employee - employer relationship. Yes, obviously poor matches based on a candidate obviously not having the minimum qualifications for the job can be eliminated, but among several candidates who appear to be qualified and reasonable fits during the hiring process, their actual fitness in the job may vary considerably from marginal to excellent.
This is kind of like asking how come I can’t find my perfect mate through an algorithm. Because no set of " proxy measures" can account for how people get along and fit with one another.
When someone acts as though human interaction and fit can or should be predictable via some algorithm or proxy measure, it makes me wonder if this person is even human or has a personality.
For all of you who are patting yourselves on the back that you took o-Chem and did well and therefore look-at-me-how-smart-I-am – are you smart enough to realize that to those college students who aren’t in chemistry / the sciences, they simply don’t spend any time thinking about o-Chem and your prowess?
My H took o-Chem as a premed. Here’s all I know about it - it’s apparently very hard and premeds need it. The end. No one is anywhere near as impressed by o-Chem as you think. Either it’s something that interests you and/or is required for a program, or it’s not and so you don’t take it. It’s not some mythical uber selector of the smart vs the not-smart.
Again, the crap at a lot of schools is just memorization. Maybe equivalent to a very detail intensive biology class. Not much special about it in terms of thinking skills when taught by most (that is why I don’t really trust many pre-meds that brag about their grades unless I know who they took for things or whether they ever willingly stepped out of their comfort zone. Often the A/A- was well orchestrated by careful instructor selection and courseload balancing). As far as “smart”, I think I appreciate those who at least try to do well in things or try things that develop better reading and analysis skills. This can be in a STEM class, but again, is perhaps less likely to be there. Courses in the social sciences and humanities, when done even decently seem to demand more engagement, creativity, and high level analysis of the material. I think many STEM majors can benefit from serious engagement with such disciplines as opposed to choosing the easiest ones to satisfy gen. eds. I think I’ve read somewhere that a solid amount of STEM folks who go on to pursue doctoral programs or even jobs in tech actually come from LAC’s where they were forced to take non-STEM courses more seriously. I think some even double majored or perhaps majored in a non-STEM subject.
However, be careful Pizza…many folks do put STEM majors who do well in such courses on a pedestal, and it isn’t just others in STEM. People have a hate-admiration (I have more of an “I love you, but the process has made many of you annoying” complex) complex for pre-meds for example. I think such tiering is based on many faulty assumptions but it unfortunately does exist. Could could from the fact that the US is putting more pressure on folks to succeed in STEM because we’re “behind” (this is debatable-depends on how you interpret all of the data) therefore essentially making those who are successful in STEM seem more valuable socially, as long as they don’t come across as a caricature of a nerd of course.
I’m not sure engineers have ever really been “put on a pedestal.” If anything, I think engineers are undervalued (but I am biased) Doctors probably get that pedestal vibe much more and some probably tend to be more conscious of that going into it. My kids went into engineering. Their father and grandfather were engineers I was actually surprised my younger son went in that direction, None are a “caricature of a nerd.” A great grandfather was a physician. I was a liberal arts person myself. I did like physics and math in high school but didn’t consider engineering. I did consider medicine briefly. I don’t think I could have done well in engineering and do have admiration for anyone that has the skills and aptitude to do well. Same for lots of professions. The best thing usually seems to be to pursue something that is the best fit and that you have the aptitude for.
Seriously? No one puts engineers on a pedestal. It’s just another job choice.
I do remember that there was a stereotype in college where some (keyword some) of the students in the engineering school thought they were so much smarter than everyone else in the other schools. But it was a lot of talking to themselves; most other people ignored it and went on with their lives, not at all upset or jealous. That was mostly in the engineers’ heads.
It’s kind of like people in the Greek system ranking houses by who is cool or who isn’t. People not in the system couldn’t care less. It’s talking to oneself.
And that’s what all this “O-Chem proves I’m the smartest” is. Complete and utter talking to oneself.
Yes, of course, it’s just another job choice. Did you look at the post before that? That is what I was responding to, STEM stuff in general being put on a pedestal. And being a doctor , nurse, etc. is also just another job choice as well.
Sorry you had such a negative experience in college with engineers, Pizzagirl. Doesn’t happen everywhere and anyone who is obnoxious, regardless of major, usually gets ignored.
I’m not talking about engineers…I’m talking about how we rank “smart” during undergrad. Yes, doctors are certainly more revered, but at most schools with a decent sized engineering scene, engineering majors are viewed as “smarter” much like a physics or math major vs. a biology major or something. I wasn’t commenting on career choice or how folks are viewed once they fulfill their career goal. I’m basically alluding to the idea that there is some weird (and perhaps unfortunate) pecking order when it comes to who is viewed as “smart” among undergrads. And as for the “nerd” comment. I was saying that only those that are viewed as “nerd caricatures” are maybe held in less esteem than other STEM oriented folks (or anyone…nerd is generally considered a negative attribute. However, I’ve seen some consider anyone who is remotely intellectual or into learning just because…as a “nerd” so I suppose the threshold is pretty low. But I allude to the caricature portrayed in various forms of media). However, these are not very common I don’t think.