NYU Chemistry Professor Fired After Students Said His Class Was Too Hard
"Students were misreading exam questions at an astonishing rate," says Maitland Jones Jr.

Maitland Jones Jr. was a professor of chemistry at Princeton University. In 2007, he semi-retired and began teaching organic chemistry at New York University on an adjunct basis.
Not anymore: NYU has fired Jones after students circulated a petition protesting that his class was too hard.
But according to Jones, the students weren't putting in enough effort—and had become disengaged, anxious, and indolent as a result of the pandemic.
"They weren't coming to class, that's for sure," said Jones. "They weren't watching the videos, and they weren't able to answer the questions."
Jones is profiled in a recent New York Times article that chronicles his firing. The piece also raises uncomfortable questions about elite institutions of higher learning and their utter devotion to appeasing unreasonable student demands. Organic chemistry is the bane of medical students everywhere, precisely because it is such a hard class. But many doctors would argue that that's the point: The class is designed to act as an effective gatekeeper, preventing underqualified students from entering the field of medicine.
"This article made my skin crawl," tweeted Alice Dreger, a bioethicist and former professor of medical humanities.* "We aren't going to end up with good doctors by letting undergrad pre-meds pass organic chem because universities want to protect their US News rankings."
According to The New York Times, 82 of Jones' 350 students signed the petition last spring; it alleged that too many of them were failing and that this was unacceptable. The students cited emotional and mental health complaints to make the case that Jones ought to make the class less difficult.
"We urge you to realize that a class with such a high percentage of withdrawals and low grades has failed to make students' learning and well-being a priority and reflects poorly on the chemistry department as well as the institution as a whole," the petition read.
The Times article suggests that throughout the pandemic, Jones made a number of accommodations for struggling students. He reduced the difficulty of his exams, but students were still failing them.
"Students were misreading exam questions at an astonishing rate," said Jones.
The article does note that the petition never called for Jones to be fired. But the university evidently decided that the best way to resolve the situation was to turn him loose.
His departure is certainly a loss for NYU's academic caliber. After all, Jones is a lion in the field of organic chemistry, publishing 225 papers in his 40-year career. He literally wrote the textbook, "Organic Chemistry," which weighs in at 1,300 pages.
"[Jones] learned to teach during a time when the goal was to teach at a very high and rigorous level," Paramjit Arora, a professor of chemistry at NYU and former colleague of Jones told The Times. "We hope that students will see that putting them through that rigor is doing them good."
NYU clearly feels differently about the matter.
"NYU had in Professor Maitland Jones a faculty member with a one-year appointment specifically to teach organic chemistry," wrote John Beckman, a spokesperson for NYU, in a statement to Reason. "In one of his organic chemistry classes in the spring 2022 there were, among other troubling indicators, a very high rate of student withdrawals, a student petition signed by 82 students, course evaluations scores that were by far the worst not only among members of the Chemistry Department but among all the University's undergraduate science courses, and multiple student complaints about his dismissiveness, unresponsiveness, condescension, and opacity about grading."
Beckman continued:
So, what exactly would be the argument for renewal of this appointment? NYU has lots of hard courses and lots of tough graders among the faculty - they don't end up with outcomes like this. Surely, among the many things a university should stand up for - including academic freedom, academic rigor, and a robust research enterprise - one of them should be good teaching. Good teaching shouldn't be pitted against rigor as an excuse for poor teaching; good teaching and rigor are perfectly compatible, and the latter is not a threat to the former at NYU.
But the question isn't whether students deserve good teachers—of course, they do—but whether good teachers should feel compelled to pass students who fail to demonstrate mastery of an extraordinarily important and complex subject matter.
"Celebrated organic chemistry professor Maitland Jones Jr. had high standards, and we can't have that in 2022," writes the leftist author and teacher Freddie deBoer. "NYU students—who are, by any rational measure, some of the most privileged people on planet earth—organized a petition and got him fired. I hope you never get treated by one of the doctors who emerges from this mess."
*CORRECTION: The original version of this piece mischaracterized Alice Dreger's former position.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Well, parent's aren't paying huge amounts of money to these elite schools so their kids can get bad grades.
I can't even imagine how bad grade inflation must be now. It was bad enough when I was in college more than 20 years ago now.
The counterargument to grade inflation is that there's more to teach now than there was in the past, so choices need to be made. There is some merit to this. For example computer skills literally weren't a thing a few decades ago. But in practice basics are sacrificed for the political flavor of the day.
So is your argument having computers makes things harder?
Organic Chemistry at an Undergrad level has not changed that much in the last few decades. It is an difficult introductory course regarding base science that is pretty well known. It requires a lot of understanding as well as rote memorization of organic compounds.
Computers have not effected chemistry in any manner, nor has the complexity of the introduction classes for O-Chem.
Instead of rationalizing bad study habits and failure to learn, why not educate yourself on a trend that has been noted for over a decade regarding grade inflation?
https://www.mindingthecampus.org/2014/10/15/grade-inflation-why-princeton-threw-in-the-towel/
Out of all the topics, why deflect or rationalize away this one?
>Out of all the topics, why deflect or rationalize away this one?
Hey, fifty cents is fifty cents.
I work from home providing various internet services for an hourly rate of $80 USD. I never thought it would be possible, but my trustworthy friend (aps-06) persuaded me to take the opportunity after Hab telling me how she quickly earned 13,000 dollars in just four weeks while working on the greatest project. Go to this article for more information.
…..
——————————>>> Here is I started,,,,,,, https://rb.gy/ryqczj
I hated the inconsistent naming of things in chemistry. It really was a drag.
Tell me about it. In my job, I have to look at lab reports and compare them to state standards. IL-EPA uses one name, USEPA uses another, and the lab uses a third name for the same stupid chemical.
In only 5 weeks, I worked part-time from my loft and acquired $30,030. In the wake of losing my past business, I immediately became depleted. [rea-05] Luckily, I found this occupations on the web, and subsequently, I had the option to begin bringing in cash from home immediately. Anybody can achieve this tip top profession and increment their web pay by:.
.
EXTRA DETAILS HERE:>>> https://extradollars3.blogspot.com/
Just match the CAS registry numbers.
Computers have not effected chemistry in any manner
lol
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_chemistry
Hey retard. We are talking about organic chemistry here. You are able to read and comprehend a post right? You seem to be getting stupider.
This class has essentially not evolved over the last few decades. It is a standard class that has been around for decades.
You aren't intelligent jeff. It is amazing watching how you twist arguments or change comments. You do realize people can read my post right?
Lol. Jeff even states what I said in my post down below.
No, the fundamentals of organic chemistry have not changed over the past 20 years, but the STUDENTS have.
But jeff is such a partisan asshole he had to go on the attack. Lol.
Never change chemtard.
“Chemtard”…… I like that. That will be the new Jeffy naming standard.
Instead of rationalizing bad study habits and failure to learn, why not educate yourself on a trend that has been noted for over a decade regarding grade inflation?
Instead of sticking to one narrow set of biased sources, why not educate yourself on the entirety of a topic?
From the about page of your own cited source:
You would do well to take this advice yourself. You don't know the other ideas worthy of consideration because time and time again you pick the easy and preferred answers that fit nicely with your narrative and your dogma, which you reinforce daily by your bubble of chosen right-wing media sources.
Wow. Jeff doesn't believe grade inflation is happening? Lol. Say something more ignorant jeff. I can provide dozens of links.
Chemtard may have been too morbidly obese to attend college. There’s a lot of walking as a college student. Even if he got a handicapped permit.
Awesome. Perfect example of what I have proposed for the "Fourth Rule of SJWs";
"SJWs have NO self-awareness."
So in a rote, knee-jerk auto-post, he picks the easy and preferred answer (Them righties are in a bubble!) that fits nicely with his narrative and dogma, Which is, of course, exactly what he is accusing others of doing . And doesn't realize it.
I can understand people projecting their own actions, prejudices and cognitive limitations onto others, but I still, to this day, find it remarkable that they think it's an undetectable and effective tactic.
This is one of the most idiotic answers I have ever seen on here.
Do you want one of these doctor's operation on you?
What about someone who pays your check that can't pass math?
Have you taught Jeff or do you just mouth off? Grade inflation has been happening and is happening. You can't fail anyone anymore because of people like you. That's why people pass grade school and can't read or write.
This example is just at the college level that has been happen for a long time. "It's too hard so it's the teacher's fault" right?
There was a survey done where a teacher asked his top students how they prepared for the test - studying, practicing, going to office hours, etc. He told the poor performing students those study habits and the answer was "that is too much work".
“It requires a lot of understanding as well as rote memorization of organic compounds.”
Assuming you have a basic understanding of the elements organic chem is not hard, it just takes time and effort. As you note, you first need to grasp carbon bonding, stereo structure. then there is the nomenclature to learn, and after that it is just a crap ton of rote memorization.
When the library would run out of scrap paper I would raid the bathrooms for toilet paper in order to practice drawing structures. To me organic was a lot like dead reckoning navigation – the only way you get good is by going out and doing it.
When underclassmen would ask me if the organic classes in pharmacy school were hard my standard response was “there is no calculus involved.”
Edit: The only thing that I would add is that, at UF CoP the third semester of organic (medicinal) chem was indeed hard. But not because the subject matter was hard. By that point it was all actually easy (just time consuming.) The only reason the class was hard was because the professor made the tests exceedingly hard.
Calculus is easy. O Chem is difficult but logical. My beef with O Chem is the memorization, the naming of reactions to honor German chemists (mostly), etc. I have nothing against Germans (or Russians) but their names do not help with understanding the reaction mechanism.
Calculus is a language. Easy for the fluent. Most people I was speaking to had to have completed at least two semesters by that point, but probably did no more and probably stopped using it over a year prior.
Nobody goes into a medical field because they like maths.
Pharmacokinetics – all calculus all the time – at the time was the single most challenging course for most.
Totally agree about naming for chemists, about the only one I remember is due to the fact that while in class the guy sitting next to me remarked that after this week was over he was going to go out and get Schiff based.
By the time I got to organic, the German names had been mostly eliminated. The issue is that there are many different reaction mechanisms that can occur, and you have to know which take priority in which situation. That was what got to me. Will the hydrogen on the Alcohol pull off, or will the nitrogen go first, and I don't even remember how to handle radicals anymore.
On the other hand, I did hear of professors who prided themselves on failing students. That deliberately did their best to maintain a 50% pass rate, no matter what the class did. That is wrong. I don't trust either side's portrayal of the situation, but I do know that I never heard of a petition going around to remove a professor who didn't really deserve it (generally by not showing up to class).
I really think a lot of it is about parents complaining. My first sentence was only half joking.
I went to college 3 decades ago. Computer skills were definitely a thing back then.
Can confirm. Dual floppies FTW.
5.25" A and B drives.
Yeah, all the new elements they have discovered the last few years really have changed how our bodies operate
The hard sciences have mostly been immune to it, but the Marxist administrators keep pushing. I have a college professor friend who also teaches chemistry to undergrads. He teaches the version meant for students pursuing STEM degrees. So it’s fairly hard by design. He told me several years ago that the Dean wanted him to switch the tests to multiple choice. He flatly refused, and thankfully still has his job, but they pressure him every year.
Multiple-guess tests don't have to be easy tests. A friend taught first- and second-semester calculus-based physics at a community college, and he used nothing but. And his students did well when they went on to do their upper-division engineering courses at the univeristy: generally, better than people who'd been university students from freshman on.
Grading exams can be an enormous time-sink for instructors, and in many cases it's time wasted. You take five or ten minutes to go through a student's incorrect solution, figure out where they went wrong, and write a note on the exam paper pointing this out. Nine in ten students will then get their exam back, look at the grade on top, and toss it without even trying to see what they got wrong and how. The one student in ten who really wants to learn the material will come to office hours to discuss the problems that they missed, whether they took a show-your-work or a multiple-guess exam.
But a good student will remember the one or two things they got wrong. The questions they got right are forgotten.
There are many incarnations of students. . And teachers.
As an undergrad just out of the Navy in the late 70's, I took a class called "Physics for non-science majors." Not kidding. I liked it, read the book, did the homework, went to every class and studied for the midterm. Most of my fellow students took the title of the class to mean it would be easy and the mid-term would be multiple guess. It wasn't. I got a B, but there were a lot of students who failed. Lesson learned.
A successful former poor students is often one who flunked once.
Back in the early 80s while a chemistry BS major at the University of Rochester the mean on one of our statistical thermodynamics class was 37...out of 100! not just that but not one student got an A in the class. The bar was set high and if you didn't make it, a call from mom or dad didn't help much...you didn't cut it. It was brutal and quickly told one if they were going to make it through and get a job in industry or did they have the chops to get a PhD...or was it time to change your major to economics or poly sci.
College has become a bit of joke at most places and in most majors..
Obviously they don't care about science, they just dropped their mask mandate. Lowering standards ensure the next generation won't know anything about science either.
They can add to the new Lysenkoism more easily if the students are worse at basic science.
If it were obvious that science supported masks, people would wear masks.
Can't have hard classes anymore. Students can't be expected to know or do things. Gotta make sure that sweet, sweet flow of federally subsidized student loans keeps coming.
Can’t have hard classes anymore. Students can’t be expected to know or do things.
You're more right than you know. The purpose of education now, college or otherwise, isn't to ensure students know things, it's to ensure the left has a vanguard of political activists to push cultural marxism.
That comment by Dreger is instructive in that it shows the colleges need to be brought to heel.
Hard classes are racist.
...and sexist.
Also, calling hard things racist is racist.
Using the word "hard" is a misogynistic micro-aggression that is tantamount to sexual assault.
I hope you never get treated by one of the doctors who emerges from this mess.
deBoer is more generous than me. I hope John Beckman and every one of those petition signers have to rely on care by doctors whose standards have been so eroded.
Yep, and the people passed on in this manner will deserve every last lawsuit against them.
Recently when starting a project my department manager and I were looking at personel. He suggested an engineer, I asked if she was a good engineer, he responded with she just got her PhD from MIT. My follow up question was how is that relavent. He stopped, thought about it, and admitted it wasnt
True
It's ironic, but for all the caterwauling that "academics" do about "hegemonic systems," they of course have cultivated an intellectual hegemony in the university by ensuring that staffs fit within a certain political ideology, and reward them for parroting the Current Thing in their studies that gets people degrees.
One of the big things that will need to be done is make it illegal to require that people list their degrees on their job applications. As you indicated, the credential doesn't mean shit anymore, so it shouldn't be a requirement for getting a job. Only ability and real-world experience should matter.
No need to make it illegal. Soon, it will be smart to not disclose your degrees on a job application.
And foolish, as a businessman, to use credentialing in lieu of any other criteria...as least credentials achieved after 2015 or so.
Certainly, not every grad will be useless or underqualified (compared to their 'credential'), but many will. You'll want to make sure your HR department is short on activists.
Iron law of woke projection gonna project.
One of the big things that will need to be done is make it illegal to require that people list their degrees on their job applications.
more of that "National conservatism" on display here, I see
Remibder jeff can others right wing, or national conservative in this case, but don't you dare call him the leftist shit that he is.
It always fascinates me when people in a political party condescend the other political party for acting the same way as their poltical party.
Don't know why that would fascinate you -- unless the 2 things it suggests about YOU are true:
1) Being in a political party is your religion so you assume it is so with everyone
2) Don't you think that such behavior predates joining a party, any party?
So a very prejudicial extremist doesn't like similar folks
Hey Miracle Whip, Larry Hogan already eliminated that requirement for state jobs when he was Governor of Maryland. No reason it can't be applied to the private sector as well.
You freaks sure love your Cult of Credentialism.
those degrees are REQUIRED for professional licenses these days.
We can have a whole conversation on the actual value of professional licensing based on degree status (little in my PE licensed opinion) but it is what it is today.
those degrees are REQUIRED for professional licenses these days.
So? That can be changed with enough motivation.
Your department manager appears confused between 'credentialed' and 'educated'.
Yes he is
My big question, regarding her, would be, does she have her EIT or PE for the field she's in? Those studies and tests ask real-world questions and require the engineer to work with a PE in the real world for at least four years. Degrees are nice, but real world experience is better.
I don't trust any engineer that goes straight to doctorate. There's a reason you need 7 years real experience to get your stamp
There is a problem with engineers from research universities in general. Not all but most. The best engineering degree you can get (and you only need a BS..not an MS or PhD..that is a waste of time) is often at public university where the profs are not required to publish a ton. Places like Purdue or Georgia Tech very good...MIT not as good.
I found degrees unreliable. I used to give prospective hires written and oral tests. Yes, I found a rough correlation between institutions and performance but not enough that I could hire without tests.
course evaluations scores that were by far the worst not only among members of the Chemistry Department but among all the University's undergraduate science courses, and multiple student complaints about his dismissiveness, unresponsiveness, condescension, and opacity about grading.
That does sound like he wasn't very good at teaching, at least on an undergraduate level. He may be very knowledgeable about his subject, but if he can't communicate it effectively and engage his students without "dismissiveness" and "condescension", he is not the right man for the job.
How do you reconcile that with his lengthy and highly successful career doing the same job at Princeton? Are you alleging that he suddenly got worse as a teacher?
Sometimes complaints are a good indicator of a poor teacher. Other times, they represent the whining and attempts at retaliation by poor students. A good administrator knows how to investigate and tell the difference. Unfortunately, there's no evidence of that occurring here.
He retired from Princeton 15 years ago when he was 69. He's now *84*. Yes, it's entirely fair to suggest he got worse as a teacher at 84 years of age.
You know who else will turn 84 in his next term, if reelected?
Mick Jagger?
Fuck Joe Biden?
Hulk Hogan?
HITLERR???
Perhaps you should read the test questions before making any suggestions.
Anastasia, watch this:
https://youtu.be/LoPu1UIBkBc
I guess that's why his fellow professors said he's horrible right? Oh wait.
Some class are tough on purpose to weed out the people who aren't serious or willing to put the work in.
But sure, it's all the teacher right?
maybe the "Kids" are lazy..given it is NYU that is the more likely scenario. kids go there to live in NYC and party..everyoe knows that (and go all woke)
Well, if they were they misreading the question because it was written / structured poorly ? Blame the teacher. If they were misreading it because the had no idea wtf they were talking about and skipped classes ... blame the students.
This is why entry level jobs are asking for bs like masters degrees; the lower degrees are not are not worth the paper they're printed on, anymore. Everybody wants a participation bachelors.
The same thing happened to high school diplomas 30 years ago or more. Standards got so lowered that having graduated high school is a meaningless participation award.
Read the letters the enlisted/conscripted wrote during the Civil war. Those were people most likely without an 8th grade education
Yes and no. The people who actually wrote the letters were often the educated subset of soldiers writing down the letters for their less-educated and sometimes illiterate fellows.
Attending an engineering program, I was taking Calculus. My 8th grade educated grandfather CHECKED my homework. 8th grade, rural Alabama back in the day was way better than prestigious high school today!
I had a psychology professor that gave juniors in college the high school finals that were given in the 1950s. The scores were a total embarrassment to the college students. The professor did it as an object lesson in how much education has been watered down. I graduated 30 years ago (feeling pretty old now).
The reverse experiment has also been done, and despite their decades of extra experience, the students who graduated in the 50s were miles behind modern students in analytical and discriminatory skills - the ones that actually matter. They were far better at regurgitating data that could be looked up, but far worse at thinking and learning for themselves.
Got a cite for that?
the students who graduated in the 50s were miles behind modern students in analytical and discriminatory skills
Are you saying that in the 50s the professors did not require the students to understand the material? I second the call for a reference.
Obviously, Swood. This is well known. Dickens wrote about it.
https://www.sparknotes.com/lit/hardtimes/full-text/book-the-first-sowing-chapter-ii/
The fifties was, unfortunately, the extreme point just before the nonsense was finally tossed out. Regurgitation of data was the _only_ thing of value.
"miles behind modern students in analytical and discriminatory skills "
And yet we are led to believe they were really good at discrimination.
Once again a right wing nutjob fails to understand the difference between rational and irrational, unfair discrimination.
Of course people who were not taught to think, and how to discriminate rationally, were much more likely to discriminate irrationally.
The takeaway is that students do well in subjects they are prepared for. If you were to take a quiz for subsistence farmers, you would fail because you couldn't convert acres of wheat into bags of fertilizer. However, claiming
The 50s had heavy emphasis on memorization, times tables, and similar things. The 80s-90s saw a change to logic and decision making. Of course, both sides would fail the unfamiliar subject material.
To compare, my great grandfather could tell you everything there was to know about the flow of oil through a pipe by standing on it and feeling the vibration through his boots. While he could tell you practically nothing outside of the oilfield or farm, he was a master of his own craft.
What? Fuzzy math? for college say an introductory physics class was taught in 1950 and 1990 the same way...except for the labs used PCs to collect data and do the charts...
You don't want to go down the "fuzzy" math K-12 argument. You learn math by doing first (memorization) then understanding..the education complex tried the other way the last 20 years and parents rebelled. In our district the 8th graders were testing at the 4th grade level..using their fingers to do simply addition. "new" educational methods are failures. Trial and error for teaching math and reading has been going on since Sumaria 6000BC. Nothing good comes out of schools of "education"
If the questions are the same as he's been asking for his entire career and only now being misinterpreted, blame the students. Or maybe blame the slew of their participation trophy teachers more interested in promulgating marxist ideology than facts and how to think for yourself.
At his age, with his experience, in his field, he is NOT making up new questions never used before. Not even plausible
But is he mumbling incoherently and not explaining the thought process behind the questions anymore? A test that was perfectly good for a well-taught class can be a nightmare for students who are effectively without a teacher.
I know we have all had professors who were long past their prime.
Did you ever take O chem? It isn't quantum mechanics but rather deals with a dizzing number of carbon molecules (hence organic) and elaborate valance electron rules (chemistry is just how electrons bind atoms together in different ways). If you are good at retaining massive amounts of information and use some basic math techniques you will do fine. BUT it demands many hours..that most likely was the problem. Kids want to party and not study
Agree. My guess is he's been doing this for so long, the questions are recycled.
I'm not seeing the libertarian angle here.
Why do you expect libritarian writing from schakford?
Here's the libertarian view:
Princeton is a private company. They can fire or hire anyone for any reason and it's none of our business. If you fear that will result in inferior doctors, start your own university.
Wrong. Criticism is not coercion.
You need to READ first, comment later. The professor RETIRED from Princeton and got FIRED from NYU. NYU is not a private company by the way.
You might be thinking of Rutgers. NYU is a private university.
https://www.nyu.edu/about.html
I see you avoided non-profit. why is that?
For the fiscal year that ended June 30, 2021, Princeton's endowment earned a 46.9% investment gain and its value stood at $37.7 billion
O-Chem?
The stupid brats can’t pass remedial middle school math:
https://edsource.org/2022/student-math-scores-a-five-alarm-fire-in-california/669797
It was because of Covid.
Or Putin. Or Trump. Or systemic racism.
That's the entire toolbox, right there. But the educational failure was totally Covid. NOT the excessive school shutdowns, you right-winger!
Competence is a right-wing concept. Prove me wrong.
The reactionary definition of "competence" as "doing something the same way it's always been done" is most certainly a right-wing concept, yes.
The right have fully embraced the white supremacist values of meritocracy and getting good results while the left has fully embraced promotion based on immutable characteristics despite worse results, and even demonized getting objectively better results as white supremacy.
Sorry bud, you are on the losing side of history.
Or at least on the losing side of rational intelligence.
Gee, why would a lefty-symp think doing something that's proven to be effective be "reactionary"?
No it’s not Chemtard. Instead of threadshitting here and embarrassing yourself, you would be far better off focusing on how worthless you are and then dig into your industrial barrel of Ben and Jerry’s. Then never come back here. Or touch children.
Why do you say ridiculous meaningless things like "reactionary definition"? You can't just make things up and expect people to respect your perspective. Competence, it has a definition and no one thinks it is what you said.
Competence is doing something correctly and thoroughly, that may involve doing it the way it's always been done, but it doesn't have to be.
Ah, but clearly, the concept of "correctness" is white supremacy or some shit.
Competence is being able to complete a productive task obtaining a viable solution in a reasonable amount of time.
Engineers executing design follow standard practices because they want predictable results.
Engineers performing development explore a variety of options to identify the best approach.
Engineers doing research look for potentially new ways to solve problems, new and old.
How a good engineer approaches his work depends on what that work is.
Jeff...in education it is often trial and error. For say reading and math we have thousands of years of teaching..nothing "new" from a school of education will be a game changer and most likely will be a negative as it is about "equity" now not better methods.
As for teaching O Chem....other than the pace of a course..it is O Chem. You have to put in the hours, you can't bullshit your way through like a gender studies or sociology or other liberal art degree. Any average IQ person can pass O Chem..but you have to be committed.
Organic Chem is a gatekeeper to ensure only students who can really get it are allowed to move on through pre-med. Go help us when these weak-kneed kids get through a watered down version and become doctors. Be careful what you wish for, libs.
But what about equity?
Irrelevant. By then the democrats will have implements Carousel and most people won’t live long enough to need doctors except the elites. Who will still have good private doctors made illegal and unobtainable for anyone else
Hit it out
At the start of my freshman year, 1/3 of us were going to be doctors. By Christmas, it was down to 10% and that was just from Chem 1. Anyone who stuck around for O Chem the next year had to be serious. That was fifty years ago.
This firing is ridiculous.
Sort-of-related: Several years ago, a local rural community college hired a recent Harvard grad to teach anatomy. The course was part of the training for Licensed Vocational Nurses. He course was basically what he had been taught at Harvard. The "failure" rate was very high. Some folks were fairly upset: in this community, being an LVN was one of the few ways to get ahead, mainly by escaping the local city. The staff and the instructor got together and developed a course more suited to the aims of the program.
This community was (and pretty much still is), a backwater, low-income, nearly all-white small city. Restructuring the course made sense.
I wasn't aware that Princeton, New Jersey was a hick, backwater town.
Then again, it IS Jersey.
My father was a college professor of chemistry for decades. When my brother complained about Organic Chemistry while in medical school, my Dad told him this was a case of memorization and NOT trying to intellectually figure stuff out. So basically, suck it up and memorize the information as it was vital to being a doc. So he did.
Sounds like this prof made efforts to help out students but the students didn't make an equal amount of effort. Entitlement is contagious. Med school and beyond won't be easy.
+
When my brother complained about Organic Chemistry while in medical school, my Dad told him this was a case of memorization and NOT trying to intellectually figure stuff out. So basically, suck it up and memorize the information as it was vital to being a doc. So he did.
Then you had a bad professor. There are some things that must be memorized, but there is also an intuitive way of understanding how organic compounds react. One simply cannot memorize all of the possible organic chemistry reactions, there are simply too many of them. True understanding requires understanding on an intuitive level how organic molecules react so that one does not have to memorize every single combination.
"There are some things that must be memorized, but there is also an intuitive way of understanding how organic compounds react...One simply cannot memorize all of the possible organic chemistry reactions, there are simply too many of them."
Note: While I never took OG or similar courses at the university, just fairly basic chemistry, biology, and some introductory astrophysics, this seems logical. My closest correlative experience would be chess:
0ne can memorize all of the positions possible after both players make one move (400 possible positions), a decent percentage of the few thousand positions "likely" to occur in a game after the first two moves by each player" (out of the over possible 70,000 possible positions), but only a very small percentage of the over 9 million positions possible after three moves.
The game quickly becomes a combination of analysis and a whole lot of "intuition."
I don't know, chess anecdotes aside, if a teacher of organic chemistry, one with years of experience, told me that the way forward was memorization, I'd be inclined to take that suggestion seriously. My best guess is that the stuff you memorize is probably the foundation for that ability to "intuitively" understand whatever. Thinking you can intuit anything without a solid basic understanding seems stupid.
+
Unfortunately, it is memorization. The biggest issue is priority. When you put two chemicals together, what two parts react first? Does it form a radical? Does the water solution come forth and grab a spare hydrogen, or does it react with the aldehyde to give you a positive charge?
While you can figure out the mechanisms from first principles, it would take so much data and so much time to do so that you wouldn't make it a tenth of the way through the test, and you would need pages of tables and data to exhaustively compare activation energies to find what happens first. Then, you also need to know how to get from one chemical to another.
What you end up doing is recognizing what happens first, then draw the next step, and then figure out what you need to do next. Continue until you get your desired product.
I would agree, but split the difference. It's a personality trait, IMO. I (a BioChemist) graduated or shared classes with ChemEs, MedChems, Pre-Pharm, Pre-Med, MoBios, Biomedical Engineers, and a host of others. The people who 'got' ogranic chemistry frequently did not 'get' inorganic (myself) and vice versa.
IME, the point is that you're either good enough to intuit the science, good enough to memorize the material, or you aren't good enough.
SN1 or SN2...or memorization? Both for O Chem as it sounds like you took it as well. It isn't thermodynamics and the math isn't hard but you have to stay with the lessons...I think you would agree with that.
You didn't make a point !!!
THe quality of an education has to be related to the audience and if it isn't, is the hired teacher to blame or those who hired him?
There's something here about petitions as well. That the university seems so affected by 80 students, or even all the students, complaining about the class being too difficult and stressful is weird in of itself. The students certainly have a right to complain, but most institutions should feel free to listen and reject.
That said, if this does continue the argument is going to evolve into people attempting to drag the professor through the mud and prove he was bad somehow. That this appears to be post-hoc will be ignored. Though, I don't know, the university might have reasoning.
He probably voted for Trump.
The university said clearly that having a petition by most of his students was merely one of many factors which clearly demonstrated he was failing spectacularly to engage with, inspire, and teach his class.
Sounds like the Prof had been phoning it in for years, and didn't put in the effort to do his job properly. He was the worst teacher at the entire university, including grad students etc, by a wide margin using multiple metrics.
I have no idea why Reason has picked this molehill to die on. A lazy career academic is hardly news.
Read Liberty_Belle's comment below as to why your observation may be wrong.
Neither is lazy research or assumptions like you made. There's also a different between worst and toughest
https://hotair.com/john-s-2/2022/10/03/nyu-students-wonder-why-they-didnt-get-an-a-for-effort-in-organic-chemistry-class-n500663
The Chinese are going to eat us alive.
Probably not. Chinese universities are even worse for grade inflation and being diploma mills. We had a supposed PhD in our lab from China doing a post doc, he couldn't even perform basic lab skills and had less knowledge about our specialty than our undergrad technicians.
Exactly. For professional licensing (PE, MD, etc.), no state board will accept a Chinese university for this reason. They want the classes taken in the US or Canada as these tend to far more rigorous.
I've probably put forth the anecdote before: we had several post-docs from a wide array of nationalities and ethnicities. We had a Chinese PI who had the comment "I don't know how he ties his shoes in the morning." uttered about him a couple of times before it was noticed that he, literally, wore unlaced snow boots in inclimate weather and wore loafers the rest of the time.
Wow. It wasn't due to obesity or bad back or sth, was it? (Not to reality-shame any oldies, cripples or fatties, there.) I sometimes notice a similar competence level amongst people who were, amazingly, able to find, identify and start their cars without having a clue how to drive.
(also, it's "inclement", not "inclimate".)
It wasn’t due to obesity or bad back or sth, was it?
Forest for the trees. We didn’t actually care whether he could tie his shoes or not. We cared that he (at least) not destroy days or weeks of his or other people’s work, explicitly laid out how he should avoid doing so on accident, and then would do so through carelessness/oversight, without regard to physicality, on his part. Either he was a beyond brilliant saboteur or actually too inept to even be considered a saboteur.
There is also a horrendous cheating problem, especially among the wealthy, who are treated almost like nobility. Teachers don't dare give bad grades because it would be considered an insult to their superiors.
"Party-connected Family" grade inflation is only a more severe version of the legacy admission, grading and graduation privilege our elites enjoy.
This is the future our wokies are striving for, one in which they think they will succeed more easily than in the racist, meritocratic, racist, Good Ol' Boys system we've had for a while.
He failed me because I said the chemical formula for water is HO2!!
/Remember White Mike.
If you mispell the name of an organic compound you are racist.
Why are only some metals noble? Must be white supremacy.
Trump!
Our nation is rife with systemic chemistry!
Water is inorganic, though.
Are there any Baeyers in trunks?
That's an inorganic compound.
... on the other hand, it's probably used enough in reactions for organic compounds that you'd still need to know it for organic chemistry.
HO2 isn't used in anything.
This snowflake, lived experience, have your own truth generation is going to destroy this country.
Hopefully, it will work out more like having "your own lived gravity" works with rock climbing and skydiving.
"Celebrated organic chemistry professor Maitland Jones Jr. had high standards, and we can't have that in 2022," writes the leftist author and teacher Freddie deBoer. "NYU students—who are, by any rational measure, some of the most privileged people on planet earth—organized a petition and got him fired. I hope you never get treated by one of the doctors who emerges from this mess."
Do you really need to know organic chemistry to be a good doctor? "Big Pharma's" army of chemists and drug sales reps do most of that heavy lifting.
Yes, at this point, most of what primary care physicians do could be replaced by an app. PC medicine exists as a profession now only because of regulatory capture.
According to many posters on this thread, getting good grades in organic chemistry is mainly a matter of memorization. So is medical school and the current practice of medicine. If you are unwilling or unable to put in the hours of study and memorize the masses of compounds, properties, and synthesis methods needed to pass organic chemistry in pre-med, you aren't suited to be a doctor and better change your major to something you can handle before wasting more years on the medical track.
Thank you for sharing. I can't believe this is what the country has come to. Those kids don't realize how privileged they are to have an absolute unit for a professor. A man that knows his business and MADE their textbooks for goodness' sake. This generation will always want to spin things for themselves. They'll wake up eventually; likely not on their own terms.
Whoa, are the spammers reading the articles now?
They're better than Jeffy, White Mike, or Sarc, and they don't even post links to child pr0n like Shrike.
I attended UC Berkeley in the late 70s. James Cason was the organic chemistry professor. On day 1 in front of 350 students in organic Chemistry 8A, he announced that this course was designed to keep people out of medical school, that the average GPA at Stanford was a 3.5 (because they couldn’t print an F on their transcripts and here at Cal we can) and the average GPA was a 2.6 in the sciences, and furthermore he aimed to keep it that way. He would not curve the class and would fail 50% of us… which he subsequently did. Boy how things have changed .
And that expectation is not acceptable these days. Given how ruinously expensive college courses are, deliberately failing students is quite frankly, evil. If I failed a single course on my major plan, my scholarship would have run out and I would have been in tens of thousands of dollars of debt.
If a professor fails half his students then the professor is incompetent. Even in a weed-out course like thermodynamics or organic chemistry, you shouldn't aim to fail students.
He SHOULD fail half the class if half don't learn the material to his satisfaction, but he should give all "A"s if all do learn it. Total bullshit to predetermine the failure rate.
Students need to fail if they can’t handle the material. And I guarantee you: half the students can’t handle the material. it doesn’t matter how much they pay.
Boy you got nailed it. Flashing back to my pre-med “ordeal by fire” at Emory back in the mid ‘60’s. O-Chen was a bear (Cal pun) and I figured taking it during the summer quarter, might help > not! Between the the ether fires and minimal “product yields”, I somehow survived. As mentioned, calculus was worse for me. I remember going into the final with a D, coming out with a high C and being so thankful. As I was telling a millennial the other day..the problem with being a straight A student is that there’s only one way you can go with each test!
Some classes are supposed to be hard, because the jobs people want to do are hard.
"If it was easy everybody could do it"
-every non beta male father ever
I think there might just be something to the complaints. I read the NY Times article in question, and the guy is 84. His abilities may very well be in decline and his attitude towards students may very well have become creaky and cranky and dismissive.
Or the students are cunts. Considering what I see in the hiring pool these days I am inclined to believe these kids are cunts.
Correct; it’s a long way from minimal standards and their enforcement to “snowflakes” (& their therapy dogs). Kinda feel sorry for the pups.
It's really impossible to say from outside.
But even if it's not "his fault" (which doesn't even mean it's really the students' fault; they could have been receiving shoddy distance learning during the pandemic and thus not have the foundation for this class) I'd say that if the students aren't leaning, it's not unreasonable to get someone else and see if they do better.
And let's not forget the gigantic ego associated with being a professor at Princeton for a half-century and being a textbook author that is cited as an authority in the field.
Are there entitled whiny students who just want a good grade and don't want to put in the effort to learn? Yes. But there are ALSO cranky professors who are ego-monsters that are thoroughly set in their ways and will blame "kids these days" for their own failings because they cannot see anything but greatness when they look in the mirror.
Yes, both are plausible. Which one you think is more plausible depends on your bias as informed by personal observation and experience.
But the general relaxation of standards is harder to dispute.
But the general relaxation of standards is harder to dispute.
It isn't anything new, either, it's been going on for at least 3 decades, if not longer, as college attendance became increasingly democratized to create more white collar sub-elites. Like a corporate quarterly earnings statement, the colleges became a lot more concerned with student retention and their own ideological feedback loops than in perpetuating themselves as producers of actual experts.
The article shared by Liberty_Belle suggests otherwise:
https://hotair.com/john-s-2/2022/10/03/nyu-students-wonder-why-they-didnt-get-an-a-for-effort-in-organic-chemistry-class-n500663
When I was in over my head I dropped the class or took the lackluster grade. Higher education was never intended to be a cake walk. If the classes are too hard you are in the wrong field. This should be a time of evaluation not bitching.
geez when i took chemistry 20 years ago the professor opened the semester by saying the point of it was to weed out a certain percentage of us and only a small percentage could earn an A.
The first day of engineering school at Oklahoma State U in 1983, in the core classes: "Look to your left. Look to your right. Those two students will be gone by the end of the semester, or _you_ will be."
These classes were in auditoriums of 500+ seats, and all the seats were full. By the end of the semester, the auditoriums were less than half full. Under 200 students started the second semester classes. Most of the shrinkage was due to students withdrawing under the pressure of huge masses of material to learn and several 10-page homework assignments every day. (In hindsight, that was a light workload compared to what a working engineer should do.) IMHO, the professors did the dropouts a favor by making it clear that they weren't suited to engineering and getting them to switch majors ASAP.
Oh my, I do not miss O-Chem. Not one bit.
Happened to me too.
O chem was one of the two classes I didn't get an A in as an undergrad. The other was equine management (mainly because i didn't put the effort into equine management and still had an 89% in the class
Perhaps Prof. Jones didn't put the effort into equine management. Or bovine or ovine.
If we eliminate deadbeat tuition loans, this all goes away.
If we eliminate deadbeat tuition loans, this all goes away
If we eliminate Affirmative Action, this all goes away
When I was teaching chemistry (Quant) I lucked out and didn’t get the one perpetually annoying kid who demanded to be told what to do, get a worksheet detailing what to do, and be given a reason not to complain to higher ups that the teachers weren’t ‘teaching right’. I knew about him because 2 of the other teachers asked for help dealing with the problem child (22 years old). He literally paraded around the room one day with a piece of paper with a big zero on it saying loudly that he didn’t understand what to do!!!??!?! And no one knew what to do and no one could help him and I’m taking a zero on this cuz no one is helping me figure it out. Quant was one of those fun classes that is math heavy and (at this particular school) had you design and implement your own experiments. Whats the concentration of certain ions in tap water? What’s the (insert titration fodder here) value of a substance? And the end of the semester no hints lab: “I have a headache, make me an aspirin. Without using glassware.” I loved it. Problem child hated it. He dropped Quant but while he complained and seat of his pants scraped by in O-Chem he was destroyed by Biochemistry. After multiple attempts with the same teacher and admin that no longer wanted any part of him, he (and his parents $) found a different college to attend.
And, ladies and germs, was that. O-chem culls most pre-meds. Putting biology and chemistry together gets the stragglers. Calculus I culls most of the rest. 🙂
This is why state schools do things like require attendance and homework.
Nice
His departure is certainly a loss for NYU's academic caliber. After all, Jones is a lion in the field of organic chemistry, publishing 225 papers in his 40-year career. He literally wrote the textbook, "Organic Chemistry," which weighs in at 1,300 pages.
This illustrates a problem with undergraduate education at research universities, especially in STEM fields. Being a good scientist and successful at publishing research papers does not make one a good teacher. The knowledge and deep understanding of the topic are almost certain to be there, but that is just a prerequisite for quality teaching. And writing a textbook is nice, but not necessarily an indicator of quality classroom teaching. (It was first published in 1997 - at least the fourth and fifth editions were co-written by Steven A. Fleming.)
Jones is 84 years old. I can't read the NYT article that this piece is based on (paywall), so I am only going by what Soave writes and quotes. But I do not see much support for the proposition that he was let go only because the course was "too hard".
In one of his organic chemistry classes in the spring 2022 there were, among other troubling indicators, a very high rate of student withdrawals, a student petition signed by 82 students, course evaluations scores that were by far the worst not only among members of the Chemistry Department but among all the University's undergraduate science courses, and multiple student complaints about his dismissiveness, unresponsiveness, condescension, and opacity about grading. (NYU spokesman)
If this spokesman's assertions are true, then it seems perfectly reasonable to have decided to find someone else to teach the class, with the class being "too hard" vastly oversimplifying the reasons.
Please, professors and teachers fudge their grades constantly to appease the children they teach. All a college lad or lass has to do is whine a little and threaten and their grades magically improve. I’ve done it myself to save my job and have seen it done over and over by fellow teachers. I tend to think that this professor was foolish enough to think that students actually give a damn anymore about learning. All they want is a party, some drugs, and a degree without having to sweat. This professor got in their way. That will send a chill down all of the professors and adjuncts down the line,
Anyone who claims that department chairs don't pressure their professors and adjuncts to grade-inflate has never actually been in the belly of the academic beast. Not to mention the fact that, in this particular instance, he was removed because a bunch of kids whined that his classes were too hard.
Funny how that wasn't a particular issue over the previous 40 years of student reviews to the point that he had to be removed. With someone that old, he's probably been using the same fucking curriculum and teaching materials from 30 years ago, it's just that the students have become dumber and lazier, and can't hack early 90s-level academic demands.
With someone that old, he’s probably been using the same fucking curriculum and teaching materials from 30 years ago...
Any teacher that uses the same lesson plans for 30 years is not trying to improve their teaching or student outcomes. Especially for a scientist, the idea that they would have nothing to improve upon or learn about how to be a better instructor is not an attitude they should have. I don't know if it is really that likely that he hasn't changed anything about how he teaches organic chemistry in 30 years, but if it was, then that would already be reason to doubt that he was a good teacher.
This illustrates a problem with undergraduate education at research universities, especially in STEM fields. Being a good scientist and successful at publishing research papers does not make one a good teacher. The knowledge and deep understanding of the topic are almost certain to be there, but that is just a prerequisite for quality teaching.
You are right, and this illustrates another problem here. The economic cycle of higher-ed STEM disciplines goes something like this:
(1) Hire an ambitious type-A new faculty member with great research ideas.
(2) That faculty member writes lots of grant proposals to get money for research.
(3) The money from the successful proposals is split between the faculty member and the university.
(4) The grant money going to the university is used to pay for the operation of the university.
(5) The grant money going to the faculty member is used to pay for the research assistants and the expenses for the research which generate results to be published, which forms the basis of the next grant proposals.
(6) And around and around the cycle goes.
Notably absent from that cycle is undergraduate education.
Jeff...wow agreeing with you again. Undergrads are just there a few years so the university doesn't' really care about them as much as the long-term revenue streams of a tenured prof from grants...
Sad but true
JasonT20, read this as to why you are wrong:
https://hotair.com/john-s-2/2022/10/03/nyu-students-wonder-why-they-didnt-get-an-a-for-effort-in-organic-chemistry-class-n500663
Even commentors from the NYT article disagree with the firing. Jones needs to fight back.
Even commentors from the NYT article disagree with the firing. Jones needs to fight back.
In an article with a clear perspective that favors Jones, a couple of quoted comments doesn't add up to much. As I've said, the NYT article is behind a paywall and I'm not going to bother trying to set up a free account with NYT to make that the one article I get to read a month or whatever to do so. My comments do not side with the students or the professor in this situation, as I don't know enough about it. Neither do most of the people commenting in the NYT article or here, for that matter. I am pointing out two things: Being a good researcher, and even having written a popular textbook, are not the same as quality classroom teaching. The statement from the university spokesman claims that Prof. Jones's drop rate, and student evaluations are well below what is typical across all science classes at the university, and a high rate of complaints about "dismissiveness, unresponsiveness, condescension, and opacity about grading".
Perhaps the students complaining and writing poor evaluations are biased and lazy, but then why single out Jones among other science professors, rather than give similar evaluations and complaints to other professors? The spokesman might be lying or exaggerating, who knows? That is the problem with these kinds of opinion articles and commentary. They try and make a single case, that may or may not be accurately represented, and try and make some broad point out of it. In this case, the main theme of this article is: college students now are lazy and want things handed to them, and college administrators are giving them that.
One of the things that we hope a college degree signifies is that the student has learned to apply critical thinking. Being skeptical of how an opinion piece, based on reporting in an article that not everyone can read, presents a particular situation to highlight a larger point the author wants to make is something a college graduate might be expected to do.
I’ve seen the abject cowardice and callousness of many a doctor during this covid mess over the past 2+ years and if that’s any indication of what is to be, God help us all. I prefer a foreign doctor to any of the spoiled American children posing as doctors now.
I am so glad this internet thing works and your article really helped me. Might take you up on that home advice you gave. Perhaps a guest appearance would be good.
https://atdoorstep.ae/dubai/handyman
Another day, another university to write off.
-jcr
Being a good chemist is not the same as being good at teaching chemistry. As my nick implies, I have a degree in chemistry, and from a relatively high-ranking university. At my time at that university, I had chemistry professors who were: (1) alcoholics and perpetually late to class; (2) doddering senile barely alive fossils who couldn't remember a student's name if it was tattooed on their hand; (3) those who didn't give a shit about students and were just marking time and presenting the same class notes that they had used for the past 20+ years; and (4) some really terrific professors from whom I really learned a lot. They were ALL outstanding chemists in their own fields, but some were great at teaching it and some were most definitely not great at it. They weren't at the university because they were great teachers, they were at the university to pull in the research dollars.
Why, it is almost as if effective teaching requires its own set of skills beyond focused study in the academic discipline of instruction itself, and those who do master the techniques of effective teaching ought to be regarded as the professionals that they surely are.
No, the fundamentals of organic chemistry have not changed over the past 20 years, but the STUDENTS have. And from a purely empirical point of view, the effectiveness of teaching is measured not by the content of the teacher's notes, but by the learning of the students. A teacher can have the most brilliant rigorously correct set of class notes but if they are not delivered effectively then it does not matter from the point of view of student learning.
"No, the fundamentals of organic chemistry have not changed over the past 20 years, but the STUDENTS have. "
Here we can agree.
The students have gone from being able to be shamed and motivated by a failing grade, to fully expecting at minimum passing, but more likely a resume-padding A in the course for signing up. And if they are struggling, its never their fault, the prof just didnt respect their 'way of knowing' the information. Also bonus points if you can claim your victimhood status made the profs bigotry extra triggering and impossible for you to learn the concepts.
Students are lazy, entitled, and now being indoctrinated that if they aren't doing well its due to an external factor. This is modern leftism. Everything is terrible and unfair, nothing is your fault, and dont worry just let big daddy govt fix it for you
The lazy students hide behind leftist rants. The actual leftist students now reject striving for achievement, and the reality that some people are simply more competent than others (and might deserve differential rewards).
compare:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_needs
Guess which approach works better?
(I used to live in USSR, so I don't have to guess.)
"Guess which approach works better?"
Except it's the students, through their tuition fees, who are ultimately providing these rewards. The customer is always right, in other words, and competence can go out the window.
Can't you learn just by reading the book?
Wait until these kids that think the professor was to hard find out how hard employers will be on them when they are not proficient in chemistry the reason they were hired because they had a degree.
You see on a job you don't get an easier boss, you get fired.
Well private businesses have already been infiltrated by this kind of thinking. Where do you think HR departments come from?
Not so, unless pressured by government or certain universities.
Do lawyers still have to take a "bar exam"? Maybe we have reached a point where to get a degree in anything, there needs to be an independent exam for that discipline. No matter what school you went to or what grades you got at that school, if you can't pass the independent exam--no degree. (Easy for me to say as I graduated many decades ago.)
Well a lot of professions have that, but the AMA basically foisted off that role to government run medical schools. Now you get a medical degree and and a year of residency. The latter is the only filter left as medical degrees will soon be worthless. And residency only serves to weed out those who actually need sleep during the year.
It used to be, that you could become a licensed engineer without an engineering degree. If you could pass the FE and PE exams and had the experience and recommendations you could get licensed.
I saw old-school engineers who were licensed this way, either degrees in a science field (often physics) or a technical degree. More years of experience were required and more recommendations but ALL of those guys were good engineers.
Today I see half of licensed engineers, complete with the required engineering degree from the official ABET accredited institution who can't be trusted to sharpen a pencil. They often have absurd expectations of how little work is expected from them and feel put upon and dissed when you try to teach them anything.
Degrees these days don't signify knowledge or readiness for the real world as they once did and professional licensing has become a method of making sure of full employment for academia ... and nothing more.
Once upon a time "universities" were institutes that primarily taught religious dogma and/or catered to rich, elite spawn who had nothing better to do before taking their place among the ruling class. I guess the enlightenment pendulum has swung back.
Actually, medieval universities made some important discoveries and were not remotely plagued by anything like CRT.
Oh cmon-give these future docs a break. Nobody needs to know organic chemistry to perform gender-affirming surgery.
Based on the practice, a stint in a butcher's shop seems to be enough.
And a couple of weeks tailoring wouldn't hurt either.
First they came for the Arts, and I said nothing because I was not an Arts major. They came for the Humanities and I said nothing because I was not a Humanities major. But then they came for the STEM majors, and no one was left to defend STEM.
The eschaton has been immanentized.
The Arts and Humanities always had some level of corruption. You have no clue what you're talking about.
Well said. And these leftist wannabes ARE the “fascists of 1939”. Once again, those who never learned history..are doomed to repeat it.
I graduated from MIT, and think I have a very good understanding of science and math. But Organic Chemistry absolutely stumped me as an undergraduate. My cardiologist is one of the most computer unsavvy people I know, but I am always impressed (and grateful) that he was able to master Organic Chemistry. From now on when I go to a new doctor I'll make sure there are no NYU diplomas on the wall.
I have experienced professors who appear to have a huge ego problem. That type of issue can (& does) affect student success. A win/win outcome is not compatible with ego. Some comments I’ve read here solidify to me this is a real thing.
I had bad professors in college, too, but I such a spoiled-ass freak that I felt the need to whine to the college to remove them for making the work "too hard."
You fucks are softer than cotton.
There are no such thing as positive rights. I suggest you read this article:
https://hotair.com/john-s-2/2022/10/03/nyu-students-wonder-why-they-didnt-get-an-a-for-effort-in-organic-chemistry-class-n500663
Being a successful retired boomer, who likes to work, but can't work full time, and took the hard classes back in the late 70s, I've mixed feelings about the lack of learning for today's students, and the ongoing decline in education.
On one hand, this makes it very easy for me to pick up limited temporary good paying work, for extra money: if you want someone well qualified and good, your best bet is an old white male because they had to jump over higher hurdles than anyone else, since affirmative action has been in place for 60 years. Your best bet for the bottom of the class, the least qualified, and the least effective professional is a female minority. Sad to say, but this is a failure of the ADA Reason has written about: freedom is better including the freedom to discriminate based on character and qualifications (you'd think this is one of the unenumerated rights mentioned in the 9th amendment). And it shows why the ADA was a bad idea.
On the other hand, the quality of professionals in the USA is declining so rapidly, that it's going to affect everyone's personal economy and pursuit of happiness.
the freedom to discriminate based on character and qualifications (you’d think this is one of the unenumerated rights mentioned in the 9th amendment)
It's specific in the First '...the right of the people peaceably to assemble'
"your best bet is an old white male because they had to jump over higher hurdles than anyone else"
Old white males are most likely to be legacy professionals riding on the backs on their fathers, who were also doctors, and were given advantages not enjoyed by those coming to the profession without the family ties. I prefer a doctor who reached their position on their own merits.
"On the other hand, the quality of professionals in the USA is declining so rapidly, that it’s going to affect everyone’s personal economy and pursuit of happiness."
Our next generation of nuclear plant operators might do a lot worse than that.
"Old white males are most likely to be legacy professionals riding on the backs on their fathers"
Is this not true for all men; thus, a statement a racist would say? The same could be said of all their daughters as well; thus, is a statement a sexist would say (said in the spirit of Gutfeld's politically incorrect statements).
As a close relative of a doctor, whose father was also a doctor, she didn't receive any advantage in medical school or her residencies, but she did get an advantage learning about medicine by hanging around then working in her father's clinic before getting accepted to a medical school outside the USA. And these days, I put a lot of foreign schools ahead of US schools (which is unfortunate for the USA, but when your customers are politicians instead of students, expect indoctrination instead of education).
"Is this not true for all men; thus, a statement a racist would say?"
Perhaps. Families matter. So what?
The higher education system is a dumpster fire, and between the emotionally weak and poorly educated millennials and zoomers, we are fucking doomed.
Conservatives can be heartened by the fact that mainstream Americans continue to accredit plenty of shitty, nonsense-teaching, censorship-shackled, academic freedom-rejecting conservative-controlled schools.
Keep nipping at the heels and ankles of your betters, clingers. It may make you feel better until replacement.
That’s rich coming from you, considering conservatives are NOT the ones responsible for “shitty, nonsense-teaching” concepts like CRT and transgenderism, and “censorship-shackled, academic-freedom-rejecting” stuff like safe spaces and banning speakers with contrary views. That didn’t come from “conservative-controlled” places, that was entirely from YOUR side, which many “emotionally weak and poorly educated millennials and zoomers” endorse.
Repent of your wrong ways and get over yourself. Considering that you straight-up want a totalitarian state, I have doubt you’ll really repent, but one can sure hope. We won’t be doomed; see you on November 8th.
Haha thanks Rev. Needed that laugh. Glad they let you use a computer for a minute or 2. Who is it again teaching CRT, 1609? Wait, teachers union teaches pre-K to 8th grade right? Why can't the students read? Those nasty conservatives right?
How about seeing how the class does on a standardized (external) test?
I did physical chemistry one summer (2 semesters in 10 weeks, oi!) with a visiting professor who was incredible. At the end of the course, he used the ACS test as a final, and just about everyone in the class aced it - even the class idiot got a passing grade. I don't think he was "teaching to the test", and we certainly never did practice runs of old versions, he just had the touch in getting the material across. Contrast that with the standard sophomore organic course two years earlier, and the professor decided to simply double all of our scores on the final so that a decent number would pass. Same cohort basically - what changed? P-chem vs organic, or prof A vs prof B?
"The students cited emotional and mental health complaints to make the case that Jones ought to make the class less difficult."
Then, when they become doctors, dying of cancer will be your fault, because you made your cancer too hard to treat.
Heard the same comment about airline pilots: when something is going wrong in the cockpit, do you want the pilot who checks all of the boxes, or the tired old fighter pilot that nothing phases and knows a whole bunch of tricks.
You need both. "Checking all of the boxes" is part of the process of making sure you aren't taking off with a broken airplane or insufficient fuel, which avoids most of the reasons a pilot's job might become exciting. For instance, every 737MAX airliner crash began with a broken angle-of-attack sensor vane, and it's much more likely that these were damaged on the ground than for anything to happen to them in flight.
OTOH, there are things that happen unpredictably in flight, such as a flock of geese flying into _all_ the engines, and then you need a pilot that knows all the tricks.
Hard to say without being there. Universities are really bad about hiring professors who are awful teachers. I experienced several of these.
This article suggests that students are likely in the wrong in this situation:
https://hotair.com/john-s-2/2022/10/03/nyu-students-wonder-why-they-didnt-get-an-a-for-effort-in-organic-chemistry-class-n500663
Generally universities hire professors for credentials showing they know their field well and have conducted research in it. None of these credentials depend at all on teaching ability, or show that the person is able to communicate his knowledge in any form other than a research paper or defending a PHD thesis. OTOH, public school teachers all have credentials from teacher training, but I've seen too many of them that lack both teaching ability (or willingness?), and subject matter knowledge.
However, this man taught at a different university, to the satisfaction of that administration. How were their standards different? Or were the students different?
I took two semesters of O-Chem back in 1980, and the courses almost caused me to change majors from Chemical Engineering to anything else. I think I got a C- in the first semester and a D+ in the second–Barely good enough to pass.
About 1/3rd of the class failed, and another 1/3rd (mostly pre-med majors) dropped-out of the class so that they could audit it and try for a better grade in the subsequent semester.
The class was crazy hard, but two masters degrees and a Ph.D. later I realize that much of the problem was me: I just wasn’t that mature in 1980, and didn’t realize how much effort was required.
If I had it to do over again, I’m pretty sure I would get an “A.”
I've been retired for 15 years, have a PhD in theoretical physics but worked in experimental physics. Recently I decided to study molecular biology but first turned to O-chem. I remember the pre-med students moaning in my day. How hard could it be? It's damn hard! But I find it fascinating. I'm actually loving it more than physical chem, which surprised me.
Makes sense that it's cool now at this point in your life, and I could have fun doing the same thing for about the same reason. But you and I have time now to invest, and already have a gut sense of where it's going. It's much harder as a newbie to build both the framework and the specifics, not knowing which is which in advance.
the problem with stories like this is that there is an element nobody reading knows or could know...... but everyone rushes to make broad assumptions to shoe horn it into the political statement they want to believe. the unanswered question everyone seems to be making assumptions on is if the class was hard because it is just hard..... or if it was hard because he was failing to communicate the material properly. (that the "misreading test questions" was even worth mentioning has to put some plausibility on the later. that isn't the subject just being too hard.)
maybe the kids are spoiled brats who want success handed to them.... and maybe the guy is just a bad teacher. maybe the pandemic morphed them into worse students, and maybe he was the one unable to adjust to the new situation. heck, it could be both.
"maybe the kids are spoiled brats who want success handed to them…. "
Not a very generous interpretation. More likely that these students sailed through high school without much effort or even learning basic study habits. In university they are no longer exceptional and much is expected of them. A difficult transition to make.
Perhaps students these days need more time. It may be too much to expect those whose attention is spread thinner and thinner to absorb the same amount of information that was routine a generation previous, especially if the students aim to get a well rounded education and not narrowly specialize. Four years is not long. In Japan, an apprenticeship to become a sushi chef is at least 5 years, the first devoted to cooking rice.
Ya think Dr. Jill took his class?
Maybe the real problem is that pre-med students shouldn't be taking organic chemistry at all because it's irrelevant to becoming a good doctor. If we "need" a screening device to determine who really, really wants to be a doctor, how about making them run a marathon every week? One of the main reasons medical costs are so high is that we don't have enough doctors. Screening out pre-meds because they won't devote hours and hours to mastering a field entirely irrelevant to their planned career, in order to create an artificial shortage of competent doctors, thus artificially driving up medical costs, seems like the most un-libertarian thing possible. Academic rigor for the sake of "rigor" is absurd.
My first day, first class of university the proff vowed to make the class hard so that half the students would drop out in order to lighten thie class size.
I can't think of a single university professor I had who wasn't incompetent.
I think the best indication of a university that delivers quality education is small class size and a good teacher to student ratio. I'm not sure that those who make it their business to rank and rate universities see things the same way. Taking classes is a big investment in time and money. Teachers should feel obliged to educate rather than eliminate.
Yes, and to achieve a good teacher to student ratio, professors eliminate students from their classes.
A professor's job is to teach. That's what the students are paying for.
A professor's job is also to ensure competence in the students he passes. Perhaps that is something you don't understand, but be very glad that the people designing bridges and everything else, and the people training future doctors do understand it.
O Chem seems to be a weeder course for pre-med students. If a student cannot or will not memorize thousands of compounds to pass O Chem, he certainly won't succeed in memorizing thousands and thousands of diseases to be a competent doctor. It's better for him to flunk him out of the pre-med track early, before he spends years in specialized classes that are worthless outside the medical field.
Too bad they failed to prevent how incompetent you've become.
I can sympathize! First day of human physiology (required for zoology majors, even if not pre-med [which I was not, and objected to the constant assumption that I was]), the prof walks in (my advisor, btw), and says "This is human physiology, required for your pre-med degrees. There are 60 of ya here now, there's gonna be 40 of ya at the end of the semester, and I'm the one who's gonna do it to ya! My name is Charlie Major. " At which point, the sob pulls out a sheaf of yellow, dogeared notes which look like they dated back 20 years and starts yammering about gawdknowswot.
The class went downhill from there.
And how exactly does that make the professor incompetent?
Probably 90% of the students shouldn’t be in that class.
Silly kids. Audit the class. Then take it the next semester. No sweat, good grade
That's fine if your parents are paying the full cost of your college, and don't mind continuing doing that for five or six years to get a four-year degree. But the other 95% have impatient parents, or scholarships and student loans that require making progress on the standard schedule or suddenly you won't have funds to stay in college.
For example, the Air Force paid for me to go to college and complete an electrical engineering degree. If in the first semester I'd found Thermodynamics (a class that's very important to steam power engineering but only peripheral to my field) too hard and withdrew and audited it, there'd have been no second semester to re-take it.
Dr. Jones taught me O chem in 1988-89. First semester was the lowest grade I got in college; I didn't interpret that as his problem, but mine. I worked harder and did better. His final lecture on Fischer's elucidation of the structure of glucose was the single best talk by any professor in any course I ever had (4 yrs college, 6 yrs grad school). I went back every year for that one lecture; it was *perfect* teaching. That was a long time ago, but I find it hard to believe Dr. Jones could ever be less than an extraordinary teacher.
I got a C- from Maitland Jones, Jr. while at Princeton in the 1980s. Always thought I deserved worse and felt appreciative I didn’t get a D! 😉
Thanks. I was wondering about his record of teaching for over several decades. It sounds like he was a great teacher who challenged his students appropriately.
I suspect a good percentage of his "students" were black or mestizo Hispanic.
I mean, how are we supposed to know if the guy isn't just a really crappy teacher? That certainly happens, and those profs/teachers need to be fired.
This article suggests otherwise:
https://hotair.com/john-s-2/2022/10/03/nyu-students-wonder-why-they-didnt-get-an-a-for-effort-in-organic-chemistry-class-n500663
Thanks. He's 84 and has been teacher for decades--over a decade at NYU. If this is a sudden complaint, it suggest it is not the teaching that's changed but the entitlement mentality of the students. That article helped answer a question I had asked below.
I got a C- from Maitland Jones, Jr. while at Princeton in the 1980s. Always thought I deserved worse and felt appreciative I didn’t get a D! 😉
Was he a good teacher? Or just a hard ass?
"Well, I've never seen no plants grow out of no toilet."
We need more information. There is difficult and there is difficult.
Forty years ago when I last taught physics on the college level, I noticed the students weren't being challenged and I increased the level of difficulty in a manner that helped them learn more. My department head had another idea; he increased the difficulty by changing the text book to one that was unreadable and merely a stumbling block. They worked harder and learned less.
I can't tell if the NYU case is one of mere pandering to politics (I suspect so) or if there is a pedagogical case to be made against Jones (could also be true). More info is needed.
NYU is not an institution with high academic standards anymore. Therefore, it makes sense that they select their staff based on conformance to social justice ideology, not based on their capacity to teach challenging classes.
The problem was that the professor was using chemical symbols other than LGBTQ.
When unqualified people go into medicine, they can, unfortunately, have successful careers even if they kill some patients along the way. When the unqualified go into engineering or become airline pilots, the results are catastrophic and quickly become obvious. Remember the pedestrian bridge in Miami?
Every field has undergraduate classes to weed the unqualified out. Do you really want the doctor who can't pass organic chem?
My two older kids both did premed at pretty good schools. Both later decided they didn't want to do medicine - one's a software engineer, one's a civil engineer. If they can't do their jobs, people figure it out really quickly.
Would be interesting to see the demographics of the 82 complainants.
An opportunity missed for an interesting experiments: have the students who failed take another organic chemistry prof's final exam. And have another prof's students take Prof. Jones'. And so on.
Well it's NYU after all, not Princeton. Overqualified professor. Probably not the best fit.
Whenever headlines screech "MULTIPLE STABBINGS IN NY" one imagines some lecturer at NYU had the temerity to try to teach differential equations or the theory of evolution to a classroom full of locals.