10 ms·
May I suggest that you misinterpreted his course as being reflective of the general state of chemistry nomenclature pedagogy in the 1970s? IUPAC was solidly in
by dalke 4y ago
May I suggest that you misinterpreted his course as being reflective of the general state of chemistry nomenclature pedagogy in the 1970s?
IUPAC was solidly in place long before then.
That of course doesn't mean trivial names weren't - and aren't! - still widely in use and thus require memorization, but only that "IUPAC naming was just appearing" doesn't seem to be correct as a general description of the time.
- jleyank 4y agoI know it was in place, but my ass was in his orgo classes at the time and as a newbie my perspective was limited. Perhaps the goal was to push harder on weed out, perhaps he was just determinedly old fashioned. Perhaps he hated teaching second year uni classes. As it was a research heavy uni, I can’t rule out the latter as I reused my qm notes from first year in my p-chem courses verbatim. And there is no inherent obviousness for iupac. Merely that it’s pile-o-memorization was more systematic. It’s just the nature of the subject as compared to other areas of chemistry and physics. Probably better than botany I guess, but I disliked biology.