Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why introductory chemistry is boring: a long-term historical perspective

get21stnight.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 143 posts

Re: Why introductory chemistry is boring: a long-term historical perspective

#131

Post by peglasaurus »

tpfour wrote: post #125

I'm sorry, but that is a _very_ poor argumentation. In fact, it's just a rant. Maybe I should let this pass but this essay really rubs me the wrong way. I would like to stress that the author is _not_ a chemist. That was obvious before he wrote it in his text. He does not have formal training in the discipline (art?) and thus his opinion should be taken with serious skepticism. On the other hand, I am a (published) c…

Considering plenty of chemistry can melt your face off or dissolve your lungs or otherwise make you disappear I'm happy that chemists have the sense to invoke formality and protocol in how they proceed. I'm guessing the better specimens are able to write their own protocols; know how they fail; know beforehand what is likely to happen and how to deal with it all. The lesser ones are likely ticking time bombs of rapid poisoning and spontaneous combustion.

Re: Why introductory chemistry is boring: a long-term historical perspective

#132

Post by chongli »

thereisnospork wrote: post #120
chongli wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't work for everyone though. I'm studying pure math and I find most applied math problems very boring. I also like solving puzzles, though. If a problem is little more than knowing which formula to use (with some manipulation) and then punching the values into my calculator then it just feels like I'm doing a computer's job. So I think if we gear our curriculum too heavily to the applied side of things, we…

I would say 'plug and chug' applied problems don't work for anyone, past the first couple. At risk of anecdote: I like solving puzzles as much as anyone[1] but the purer side wasn't a puzzle to me because there is no purpose, no picture to be pieced together[2]. [1] Back to the original topic, chemistry interestingly inverts its approach with organic chem - a class in puzzle solving that often frustrated premeds tryi…

That’s disappointing. My math education so far has included the usual calculus and the basics of analysis up to and including multi-variable calculus as well as linear algebra on abstract vector spaces, inner product spaces, and complex vector spaces. Additionally, I’ve delved into combinatorics with enumeration, combinatorial proofs, and generating functions as well as graph theory, abstract algebra including group theory and ring theory, and mathematical logic.

I plan to take Euclidean geometry, real and complex analysis, fields and Galois theory, and eventually measure theory as well as differential geometry and maybe commutative algebra and representation theory.

The problems I’ve studied in all of these courses have been varied, interesting, and highly challenging. Far more entertaining than any problem I encountered in high school. But not all of the material was too complex for a high school student to understand. I could definitely teach a high school class in graph theory and I bet the students would have a lot of fun with it. Despite it being a beautiful and sometimes very abstract field, it can be applied to computer science as well as games and puzzles of all sorts. Yeah, it’s not useful to any of the hard engineering disciplines but it’s far more entertaining than grinding integrals all day.

Re: Why introductory chemistry is boring: a long-term historical perspective

#133

Post by harry8 »

zabzonk wrote: post #16
MadWombat wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> fingers into concentrated sulphuric acid You might want to wash your fingers under a lot of cold water after that :)

Certainly, don't pick your nose :)

Hang on. Don't go to the toilet!

Re: Why introductory chemistry is boring: a long-term historical perspective

#134

Post by fuzzfactor »

ghaff wrote: post #76
bitwize wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why many collegiate level exams now permit you to cram as many equations, rules, etc. as will fit on a single piece of paper (one side) and use it during the exam.

This isn't really new though. As I recall, it was the norm quite a few decades ago for me.

No reference notes for us on exams, calculators either since they were still considered too expensive for the average student.

Slide rules still required just like it had always been.

Re: Why introductory chemistry is boring: a long-term historical perspective

#135

Post by sizzle »

tnecniv wrote: post #108

This is a bit of a rant. For my engineering degree, I had to pick between taking into to chem or intro to bio. Since I was an electrical engineer and didn't care for either subject, I put this requirement off until my senior year. I took intro to chem because I thought it would be easier since I was mathematically inclined, but it was one of the worst educational experiences I had at university. The professor was cle…

You must have grokked dimensional analysis from your strong EE math background which made the class a piece of cake?

Maybe you should try organic chemistry, the curves in that class are brutal and it's almost impossible to know everything intuitively to do well in tests the first time you are exposed to the material and concepts. Fun class and topic for the intellectually curious mind.

Re: Why introductory chemistry is boring: a long-term historical perspective

#136

Post by filoeleven »

Supermancho wrote: post #107
jcims wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Totally agree. The idea that chemistry is separate from physics is pretty dumb anyway. I'm kinda talking out of my blowhole here, but it seems the reason chemistry and biology are distinguished from physics is that there are a lot of emergent phenomenon that we didn't and in many cases still can't predict from the fundamental physics. But, it's still there. Maybe chemistry should be called molecular dynamics or somet…

> The idea that chemistry is separate from physics is pretty dumb anyway. Applying reduction to say "everyone young person should know everything" is hubris. It's a practical division, at multiple levels. eg Specialization, profession, etc. Renaming (Molecular Dynamics) is just adding to the soup. Yes there is some overlap, but it's not worth trying to jam into the minds of students who dont have the drive or aptitud…

An example of reductionism in CS: one of the great minds of the field[0] adamantly believed that compiled programming languages were literally a waste of time, since the machine code they spit out was not as optimal as handwritten assembly and the compiler used extra computer time to build it. Can you imagine the state of CS today if that view had prevailed?

Chemistry is a useful abstraction over physics in the same way. Hell, so is Newtonian mechanics over quantum mechanics, for that matter. The difference between these and my CS example is of course that the amount of stuff in physics itself is much more vast and undiscovered. The same is certainly true for biology, psychology, and sociology; and the exploration of their respective spaces are only hampered by focusing too much on the fields they rest upon.

[0] I wish I could find the reference. I think it was Von Neumann.

Re: Why introductory chemistry is boring: a long-term historical perspective

#137

Post by papreclip »

djrobstep wrote: post #116
papreclip wrote: post #30

Why does chemistry have to be less boring? We are not short on chemists. Take it from someone who left the field Exploding balloons, frozen roses, elephant toothpaste are all very unlike what a chemist will do for a living after they've been lured into the field with this magician's act. Personally I don't think it's a bad thing if the classes are a little dry. It's true chem lab is a bit too much like following cook…

> Why does chemistry have to be less boring? We are not short on chemists. Because there's more to life, education and knowledge than just being grist for the mill of capitalism.

The first alchemists and chemists, including the "father of modern chemistry" Lavoisier, were rich noblemen indulging in a hobby. It's true, being free from the need to earn your daily bread means you can study what you like. If only it were so for all of us

Re: Why introductory chemistry is boring: a long-term historical perspective

#138

Post by tnecniv »

sizzle wrote: post #135
tnecniv wrote: post #108

This is a bit of a rant. For my engineering degree, I had to pick between taking into to chem or intro to bio. Since I was an electrical engineer and didn't care for either subject, I put this requirement off until my senior year. I took intro to chem because I thought it would be easier since I was mathematically inclined, but it was one of the worst educational experiences I had at university. The professor was cle…

You must have grokked dimensional analysis from your strong EE math background which made the class a piece of cake? Maybe you should try organic chemistry, the curves in that class are brutal and it's almost impossible to know everything intuitively to do well in tests the first time you are exposed to the material and concepts. Fun class and topic for the intellectually curious mind.

Perhaps that was it.

I've also talked to my chemist friends in grad school and they admit they didn't really start liking chemistry until their junior year, which is when they felt confident they could work in a lab and figure out an experiment on their own. I noticed this is different than my engineering classes where they got us working on open ended lab problems from the first semester. Obviously our solutions were poor, but it got us feeling like we were able to apply what we were learning right away.

Re: Why introductory chemistry is boring: a long-term historical perspective

#139

Post by pbhjpbhj »

fooker wrote: post #47
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I refused to "do a Hubble" and recorded the results I got and got marked down for poor experimental accuracy. Aside, I hate the practice of calling demonstrations "experiments".

What is "do a Hubble"?

Hubble's data (for his "constant") was all over the place, he just drew a line AFAICT and ignored all the data that didn't fit it.

Re: Why introductory chemistry is boring: a long-term historical perspective

#140

Post by fooker »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #139
fooker wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is "do a Hubble"?

Hubble's data (for his "constant") was all over the place, he just drew a line AFAICT and ignored all the data that didn't fit it.

Isn't that the exact definition of what a "trend line" is?
Post reply on HN