4 ms·

>Take chemistry for example. All of chemistry should be in a laboratory setting. All of it. It’s a perfect hands on discipline, yet the standard sequence is jus

>Take chemistry for example. All of chemistry should be in a laboratory setting. All of it. It’s a perfect hands on discipline, yet the standard sequence is just year after year of memorizing facts and definitions with very little comparable lab time. I mean this is just... Incorrect. High school chemistry (generally the first time it's called chemistry and not science) is often taught in a lab (I assume mainly a function of whether lab facilities are available). Undergraduate general chemistry and organic chemistry generally have a required lab component that is required to be taken concurrently (this is even true at community colleges). Using general chemistry as an example, the lab portion is usually 1 three hour (at least) class per week, while lecture is 3 one hour classes per week (organic chemistry is essentially the same). More advanced chemistry might not have lab components (e.g. physical chemistry), but the foundations are almost always at least combined with a lab.

ModernMech 5y ago
I mean all of it, even all the way down to the math requirements. I envision a chemistry degree with zero sage-on-the-stage, or maybe in this case, sage-in-the-page style content delivery.
- ravitation 5y ago
  Ok... I was responding more specifically to... >the standard sequence is just year after year of memorizing facts and definitions with very little comparable lab time And I compared the lab and lecture time... and they are very similar (essentially equal)... I didn't choose to respond to your overall ideas about a chemistry degree because that would require convincing you that there is quite a bit of fundamental information needed to make those labs useful (and efficient) and there was already a great misunderstanding regarding the amount of time chemistry students spend in the lab.
  - ModernMech 5y ago
    > that would require convincing you that there is quite a bit of fundamental information needed to make those labs useful Well you don't need to convince me of that since I admit as much in my original post! > and there was already a great misunderstanding regarding the amount of time chemistry students spend in the lab. I can only speak to my experience advising dual CS and Chemistry majors. The ratio of lab to class hours for them is 1:2, and worse when you add electives. So that's the basis for my statement. YMMV.
    - ravitation 5y ago
      >Well you don't need to convince me of that since I admit as much in my original post! Ok, I guess in your degree program the only difference is that you sit around in a lab instead of a lecture hall learning those fundamental things then? Because I'm not referring to some trivial amount of fundamental information... I'm referring to, roughly, the amount of information covered in 3 one hour lectures a week. > I can only speak to my experience advising dual CS and Chemistry majors. The ratio of lab to class hours for them is 1:2, and worse when you add electives. So that's the basis for my statement. YMMV. Ok, I'm citing directly from my university's course catalog (and also the courses I took at several universities) so YMMV.

ModernMech 5y ago

I mean all of it, even all the way down to the math requirements. I envision a chemistry degree with zero sage-on-the-stage, or maybe in this case, sage-in-the-page style content delivery.

ravitation 5y ago
Ok... I was responding more specifically to... >the standard sequence is just year after year of memorizing facts and definitions with very little comparable lab time And I compared the lab and lecture time... and they are very similar (essentially equal)... I didn't choose to respond to your overall ideas about a chemistry degree because that would require convincing you that there is quite a bit of fundamental information needed to make those labs useful (and efficient) and there was already a great misunderstanding regarding the amount of time chemistry students spend in the lab.
- ModernMech 5y ago
  > that would require convincing you that there is quite a bit of fundamental information needed to make those labs useful Well you don't need to convince me of that since I admit as much in my original post! > and there was already a great misunderstanding regarding the amount of time chemistry students spend in the lab. I can only speak to my experience advising dual CS and Chemistry majors. The ratio of lab to class hours for them is 1:2, and worse when you add electives. So that's the basis for my statement. YMMV.
  - ravitation 5y ago
    >Well you don't need to convince me of that since I admit as much in my original post! Ok, I guess in your degree program the only difference is that you sit around in a lab instead of a lecture hall learning those fundamental things then? Because I'm not referring to some trivial amount of fundamental information... I'm referring to, roughly, the amount of information covered in 3 one hour lectures a week. > I can only speak to my experience advising dual CS and Chemistry majors. The ratio of lab to class hours for them is 1:2, and worse when you add electives. So that's the basis for my statement. YMMV. Ok, I'm citing directly from my university's course catalog (and also the courses I took at several universities) so YMMV.