Chemistry text minus memorization?

  • Thread starter Thread starter loom91
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Chemistry Text
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around finding suitable organic and inorganic chemistry textbooks that emphasize understanding principles over memorization. Participants explore various texts and their approaches to teaching chemistry concepts, particularly for high school students preparing for competitive exams like the IIT-JEE.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant seeks a chemistry text that focuses on understanding principles rather than memorizing reactions, expressing a preference for a conceptual approach.
  • Another participant suggests Morrison and Boyd as a widely recommended text for organic chemistry, noting its detailed explanations of mechanisms.
  • A participant reflects on their experience with organic chemistry, emphasizing the importance of synthetic chemistry and the inherent memorization involved in certain reactions.
  • Some participants mention the need for a similar approach in inorganic chemistry, with one noting the lack of suitable textbooks that avoid memorization.
  • Atkins and De Paula is recommended for physical chemistry, although one participant finds it less useful due to its approach not aligning with their learning style.
  • There is a discussion about whether Morrison and Boyd provides the mechanistic approach desired, with some asserting that it does include detailed descriptions of reaction mechanisms.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the value of Morrison and Boyd for organic chemistry, but there is no consensus on the availability of a comparable inorganic chemistry text that minimizes memorization. The discussion reflects differing opinions on the balance between understanding principles and the necessity of memorization in chemistry.

Contextual Notes

Some participants express uncertainty about the effectiveness of certain texts for their specific learning styles and needs, indicating that the suitability of recommended books may depend on individual preferences and educational backgrounds.

loom91
Messages
404
Reaction score
0
Hi,

I'm in high school (11th grade) in India and I'm looking for a good organic chemistry text. I'm very bad at memorizing reactions (memorizing anything, for that matter) but good at grasping physical concepts and math, like structure and quantum mechanics. I'm looking for a text that will allow me to predict reactions by understanding the underlying principles rather than memorize what happens when you mix this with that, even if that means I've to learn the principles at a somewhat advanced level. What will be a good text for me?

The IIT-JEE syllabus covers Nomenclature, isomerism, reactive intermediates (carbocations, carboanions, free radicals), alkane, alkene, alkyne, benzene, phenol, alkyl hallides, grignard reactions, alcohol, ether, carboxylic acids, amines, haloarenes, carbohydrates, amino acids and peptides, polymers, reaction mechanisms (homolytic and heterolytic bond cleavage, electrophilic addition, electrophilic substitution, nucleophilic substitution, nucleophilic addition).

I see that Morrison and Boyd is everywhere universally recommended. Will it suit my purposes?

I will also like to know if there is such a book (with emphasis away from memorisation) on inorganic chemistry, though our teacher (a professional researcher specialising in inorganic reaction mechanism who is eternally trying to convince us that inorganic chemistry is as interesting and as logical as organic) laments that no such textbooks are yet available.

Thanks very much for your help.

Molu
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
No reccomendations? Will Peter Sykes be good?
 
I used Morrison and Boyd for undergrad Organic. -- It's "the" text supposely. I unfortunately can't remember the advanced inorganic text we used (I DID really like that one) and my texts are currently boxed up for a move... I'll get back to you in about a month? What I remember most about the classes was that I took them from particularly good instructors... who were challenging but very good at explaining things.

Maybe it's because I'm a physics person, but I always viewed the primary interest in organic chemistry to be synthetic chemistry -- MAKING things -- so sometimes caring less about the governing principles, so much as caring that there were certain reactions and techiques that did work to make things. That inherently has a bit of memorization (for instance WHAT catalyst to use, and WHAT a grignards reagent is... ). Now I RESPECT organic chemists... because they really have a purpose -- they design a structure and go out and make it... actually I probably think they have the most FUN of all chemists (the labs for the classes were really cool)... but I just know I'm a physics type of gal. I still use Morrison and Boyd as a reference, but mostly that's when I need to determine IUPAC names of molecules. :wink:
 
Thanks. I guess you could call me a physics type of guy, that's why I'm more interested in structural features and underlying principles of chemistry rather than memorising what happens when.
 
Another vote for Morrison and Boyd from me. It's a nice book, and the principles, mechanism, etc are very nicely explained. For inorganic, I used the book by J.D Lee. Although, inorganic chemistry involved a lot more memorization. Also, if you want a text on physical chemistry, have a look at the one by Atkins and De Paula. IMHO, that book is very very good.
 
I do have Atkins De Paula, but since it does not cover from the grounds-up like most physics texts do, it's of very limited use to me.

It seems Morrisson and Boyd is a general purpose text and I'll be getting it, but does it provide the mechanistic approach I'm looking for or is it more focused towards the memorise reactions of functional groups type?
 
loom91 said:
It seems Morrisson and Boyd is a general purpose text and I'll be getting it, but does it provide the mechanistic approach I'm looking for or is it more focused towards the memorise reactions of functional groups type?

The mechanism of most reactions are described in detail, with evidence. I think that M & B will suit your requirements very well. Also, many of the exercise problems are very challenging. So, I think it'll definitely help for your exam.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
6K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
10K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
Replies
10
Views
6K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
Replies
8
Views
35K