Some Thoughts about our Grade for Organic Chemistry
Yonah Ziemba
Hi there,
Many, many students are very upset about the Orgo Exam on friday. The class average was 46% and we all scored substantially less than anticipated. There were a few questions that were ambiguous or unexpected. And we've all heard that Prof. Jones does not curve the grades.
But today a TA told me something that made me feel somewhat better about it. Although Professor Jones doesn't curve the grades, he does something similar called 'normalizing' the exams. He doesn't want two exams to have a lower average than the third exam, so he simply adds a fixed amount of points to students' grades on the lower two exams. The goal is to compensate for an exam that was too hard, and make all three exams contribute equally.
There's no guarantee that he'll do this for us, but he's always done it in the past. Also note that the score for the final is not adjusted.
So for us, the averages were approximately 55, 63 and 46. So to 'normalize' all the exams, he would add 8 points to your exam I score and 17 points to your exam III score (and won't add anything to exam II). Now all the exams have the same 63 average. After this, he drops your lowest grade and follows the guidelines in the syllabus. So if you calculate your grades this way, your grade may be better than you thought.
.....and just for the record, here's what I think was less than fair on this exam:
Q1- (flat or pyramidal) This was not taught recently, and we had no way to know to prepare this before the exam. As a matter of fact, I think it is covered only in GenChem and Prof. Jones never even discussed it in lecture or in the textbook. (Also, the instruction to "add dots as necessary" is vague and many students who knew the chemistry lost points because they did not understand that instruction.)
Q2- (modify the structure to test mechanism) I was told by a grader that only about 20 students got it right. So which is more likely- that there's something wrong with 90% percent of our class, or there's something wrong with this exam question?
Q4- (use spectroscopy to distinguish molecules) Of the 6 sets, the answer to 2 of them was "you can't distinguish them". Now, the exam instructions say clearly "use spectroscopy to distinguish..." and implies that you can distinguish in these cases. In previous years, the instructions have said "you can't" is a possible answer", but for our exam it says nothing like that. So the instructions are ambiguous and it seems like its deliberately set up for us to to get it wrong. Or maybe he simply forgot to add that phrase in the instructions.
So I think that we all are justified in being upset. Yet there still is hope that after the exams are 'normalized' we'll be compensated for all this. And when they curve the lab scores, hopefully those scores will go up, too.
So hopefully, we can all get the grades that we we've worked so hard for!
Carley Demchuk
I'm going to be lovingly blunt, because I also didn't do that well. But, it was a fair exam.
Q1. The first question, if it's considered gen chem material, you should still know it. His group problems address the pyramidal form of a carbocation bridgehead incessantly, in addition to a few others. In some of Jones's end up chapter questions he says to draw the Lewis dot structures and resonance forms. He holds you responsible for them. And, if he told exactly what to prepare there'd be nothing on which to test you.
Q2. Yes, technically that particular mechanism is covered in chapter 10. But the idea to "modify the structure to change the mechanism" in seen in three separate mechanisms covered in chapter 9 and Jones lectured it us. So it's not exactly out of the blue. I discovered this the hard, sad way.
Q4. I also got much of this page wrong, including not writing you "can't use any of them." But previous exams allow you to say you "can't use any of the mechanisms," and I kind of think Jones likes it when you're bold and original. Just do it intelligently.
I think we're all upset, but I don't think it's very fair to start pointing fingers and saying something's wrong with the test only. Part of the solution is also to study differently and broadly.
If you're all like me, you're trying to find the energy and confidence to study for the upcoming final exam. Holler if you want to have group study sessions any time in the next week!
good luck and we're almost done!
best,
-carley
Carley Demchuk
Post-Baccalaureate Pre-Med Student
NYU 2012
B.A. Art History 2009
University of Chicago
Yonah Ziemba
Hi Carley and all Posbaccs,
Thanks for your reply to my previous email. You made some good points
there and I appreciate it. It's nice to see such a healthy,
constructive attitude. Particularly, I really admire how you were able
to look at "the other side of the story" before making judgments, even
when personally involved.
Here are a few comments about your response:
Quote:
Q1. The first question, if it's considered gen chem material, you
should
> still know it. His group problems address the pyramidal form of a
> carbocation bridgehead incessantly, in addition to a few others. In some of
> Jones's end up chapter questions he says to draw the Lewis dot structures
> and resonance forms. He holds you responsible for them. And, if he told
> exactly what to prepare there'd be nothing on which to test you.
You are right in all those facts, but I still think that he should be
testing us on what he taught us, not GenChem material and not group
problems. Most of us are in the lecture section, and we are not
responsible for group problems- they are given to us as an aid, not a
responsibility.
And most importantly, I think that ideally students should be given a
very clear picture of what to expect and how to prepare for an exam,
just like Prof. Halpin's sample exams or the MCAT's published
"Definition of the MCAT". It's certainly not illegal not to, but I
think it's what a good teacher usually does because he/she wants
students to study efficiently and succeed.
Quote:
> Q2. Yes, technically that particular mechanism is covered in chapter 10.
> But the idea to "modify the structure to change the mechanism" is seen in
> three separate mechanisms covered in chapter 9 and Jones lectured it us. So
> it's not exactly out of the blue. I discovered this the hard, sad way.
Yes, you are right. He did deal with this in lecture and it was not an
unfair question. I did not remember that when I wrote the original
email.
Quote:
> Q4. I also got much of this page wrong, including not writing you "can't
> use any of them." But previous exams allow you to say you "can't use any
> of the mechanisms," and I kind of think Jones likes it when you're bold and
> original. Just do it intelligently.
During the exam, I actually wanted to to write "you can't" but I
decided not to because I noticed that the instructions differed from
previous years, and I assumed that he deliberately changed the
parameters of the question. Probably many other students also did
that. And you're certainly right that he "likes it when you're bold
and original", but is that a fair reason to deliberately give
misleading instructions on a graded exam that partially determines the
future career of 220 students?..... Personally I think that I was a
honest mistake on his part, he wanted to include that phase and simply
forgot it.
And in general, if a teacher sees that the class average is
consistently lower than 65%, it's probably a good idea to change the
testing style. Our class is at least half full of good students who
are smart, work hard and can one day be successful doctors, chemists,
etc. I think that courses should be designed in a way that a smart
student who works hard is allowed to feel successful and feel good
about themselves. And curving or normalizing the grade at the end of
the semester does not prevent the pain and low self esteem throughout
the whole school year.
Quote:
> I think we're all upset, but I don't think it's very fair to start pointing
> fingers and saying something's wrong with the test only. Part of the
> solution is also to study differently and broadly.
I don't know any practical or realistic way to study more broadly or
differently than we've all studied until now.
And in general, you're certainly right, it's never useful to blame an
issue on someone that you don't have to power to change. But it's also
healthy for a person to know whether they're working hard and doing
the right thing, or failing and wasting their talents. It's important
to a person improve their behavior based on feelings of gratification
or failure.
I wrote that email because I watched many students studying many
hours in Bobst, working hard, collaborating with friends and learning
a lot. I think they should know that they probably know Organic
Chemistry a lot better than a typical "A minus" student in an average
college. I think they should try to feel good about that. And I think
they should all feel accomplished and successful so they can continue
sacrificing like that.
Best,
Yonah