- #1
Math Is Hard
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 4,527
- 28
What I can't figure out is: do I hate it because I suck at it? Or do I suck at it because I hate it? :grumpy:
Along these lines...for me it's cooking : I hate it (the act, not the idea) and I suck at it. :grumpy:Math Is Hard said:What I can't figure out is: do I hate it because I suck at it? Or do I suck at it because I hate it? :grumpy:
Me too. Me too. Me too!!!!! :grumpy::grumpy:I hate chemistry! Hate it! Hate it! Hate it!
Actually thats Applied Super-Glue vs Apllied Super-Lube Theory. :rofl:Tsunami said:I'm really sorry you're so unhappy with your grade, MIH. I wish I knew how I could help you get your mind into the proper 'mode' to think about chemistry, ya know?
If you think about it, tho - chemistry is really pretty easy. See, if it doesn't move, and it's supposed to, mix up some epoxy! TA DA!!!! Fixed! Conversely, if it doesn't move, and it should, give it some WD40! TA DA!!! Same thing!!!Cool, huh? That's Chemistry!!!
![]()
That's so interesting that you said that. My textbook is subtitled "A Project of the American Chemical Society" and I always had this uneasy feeling that there was some hidden agenda they're trying to get across. The text seems to assume that people are coming into the course with the assumption that chemistry/chemicals/chemists are bad. It's like they are trying to undo some pre-conceived associations of "organic=good" and "synthetic = bad".Bystander said:You may be a "victim" of the textbook companies --- your age group vs. what's currently fashionable for introductory chem texts? Try the library for some nice, dull, unillustrated texts from the 50s or early 60s --- Dull, Metcalfe, and Williams comes to mind --- give you a different viewpoint or slant on the thinking. Won't get you up to speed on the biotech revolution, but you aren't committed to a doctoral program in biochem at this point.
Ha ha. I'd like to see how students react when the book gets to the chapter on Synthetic Organic Chemistry :uhh:Math Is Hard said:That's so interesting that you said that. My textbook is subtitled "A Project of the American Chemical Society" and I always had this uneasy feeling that there was some hidden agenda they're trying to get across. The text seems to assume that people are coming into the course with the assumption that chemistry/chemicals/chemists are bad. It's like they are trying to undo some pre-conceived associations of "organic=good" and "synthetic = bad".
It reminds me of when I was learning about the multiple exceptions in different oxidation states and also the funky orbital notations for the transition metals :yuck:. At least I didn't have to remember the electronegativity and ionic radius for all elements.Tom Mattson said:I hated chemistry, too. I liked the laboratory part ok, but the classroom part was absolutely maddening. It didn't even seem like we were doing science, what with there being more exceptions than rules ("Silicon only bonds with 4 partners, except when it doesn't, like in these 143 cases. Memorize them.") At least that's how I remember it.
Ah-hah --- "PC Chemistry," Woodsy Owl and Ralph Nader --- that explains a lot. The ACS as a professional organization has a pretty mixed record; done some good things, done some bad things, and hosted a lot of meetings, schmooze sessions, and what-not. Getting involved in instruction beyond the establishment of criteria for accrediting curricula is one of the bad things.Math Is Hard said:That's so interesting that you said that. My textbook is subtitled "A Project of the American Chemical Society" and I always had this uneasy feeling that there was some hidden agenda they're trying to get across. The text seems to assume that people are coming into the course with the assumption that chemistry/chemicals/chemists are bad. It's like they are trying to undo some pre-conceived associations of "organic=good" and "synthetic = bad".
(snip)
and, one of the most useless. Chemistry is all about interactions of a minimum of three bodies. C'mon, Tom, you're the QM guru, give us the first ionization of He from first principles. The "143 exceptions" are part of the working vocabulary that serves to bridge the gap between Schrodinger and the real world. They aren't exceptions to physical laws, just exceptions to the rules of thumb that have to serve as substitutes --- the physicists haven't worked out any useful approach to the three-body problem for us.Tom Mattson said:I hated chemistry, too. I liked the laboratory part ok, but the classroom part was absolutely maddening. It didn't even seem like we were doing science, what with there being more exceptions than rules ("Silicon only bonds with 4 partners, except when it doesn't, like in these 143 cases. Memorize them.") At least that's how I remember it.
But, ever being the optimist, I decided to leave chemistry on a "high note", so my last course in it was a grad course called Quantum Chemistry. The professor was a theoretical chemist and kept saying that the Schrodinger equation is one of the most important equations in chemistry.
or, maybe it subordinates physics to chemistry ---- hmmmm. Let's see --- do more physicists hate chemistry than chemists hate physics, or do a larger percentage of physicists have difficulty with chem courses than chemists with physics courses. Maybe this needs a poll --- nah.I resisted the urge to raise my hand and tell him that it's the Schrodinger equation that makes chemistry a branch of physics.
I can't either. Well said, MiGUi!MiGUi said:Ah, I don't like chemistry, its very... (I can't find the correct word to describe it in english)