The University of Missouri at Columbia
Chemistry 205 - Introduction to Organic Chemistry - Fall Semester 2004

Teaching Evaluations - Overall Rating 2.0/4.0

Criteria of evaluation FS04
2050
F03
205

Organization and preparation of lectures and discussions 1.90 3.12
Instructor's enthusiasm for the subject matter 3.61 3.86
Helpfulness in answering questions and clarifying points 1.89 2.65
Ability to lecture in a manner which is easily followed 1.21 2.10
Ability to stimulate interest in the subject 2.19 2.62
Overall rating of the instructor 1.85 2.75
Your rating of how much you have learned 1.58 2.37
Overall rating of the course 2.50
Overall rating 1.98 2.75
Students Starting (Test 1) 100 110
Students Finishing (Final) 100 109
Student Retention 100% 99%
Students Advancing (among stud. compl. course) 98% 96%
Evaluations Returned 84 66
Eval's Ret'd by Percent of Students at EoS 84% 61%
CIITN Level 4 2
TAs 6 3
Online Notes N N
Online Student Comments Y Y



QUESTIONS
1. List strong and weak features of the lecturer and include 
   suggestions for improvement.
2. Compare the lecturer to other you have had (especially with  
   those in science courses at this level ...)
3. List the strong and weak features of the overall course (not the
   lecturer) and include suggestions on how its quality might be improved.
4. Compare the course with the others you have taken.
5. Your overall rating of the course (circle letter grade)
6. My approximate GPA prior to the current semester was _____.
 


RESPONSES 
[Responses are complete and verbatim. Emphasis by way of bold face ours]

Student 1
1. Illogical order
2. More critical
3. Sequence lab and lecture better
4. Very different but requiring critical thought which is very good.
5. B
6. 2.7

Student 2
1. He was all over the place, hard to follow and was incredibly unclear about 
what he was teaching.  Also about half of the class time of the entire year was 
spent with Dr. Glaser speaking about political views and ideas about abortion, 
stem cell research and cloning.  Also it was ridiculous to ask him a question 
and have him say “though, that’s life” I learned nothing in class.  
My suggestion for improvement would be to fire him.
2. He is by far the worst teacher I have ever had.  I don’t know how he has 
kept his job.  He actually made me hate science and chemistry in general.  He 
made me want to just give up.  It’s pathetic that the only several students 
passed his class is by the enormous amount of extra credit.  
3. There are no strengths.  This class taught too little, wasted too much time, 
was unfair in grading, had the teacher expressing his political views too much, 
and it made me hate chemistry.  This was the worst course I have ever taken.  
4. It was the worst.  See all above statements. (In other courses I actually 
learned something.)
5. E
6. 3.5

Student 3
1. He does enjoy what he teaches.  But he bounced around on subject material 
and is easily side tracked and too interested in politics maybe he should think 
about teaching something else.
2. He really enjoys his subject and knows it well but isn’t the best 
teacher.
3. It’s extremely difficult maybe more extra credit.  But I was forced to 
learn a lot to be able to apply that knowledge.
4. It is extremely difficult and tests are on material that’s a lot 
different (i.e. harder) than anything we learned.
5. D
6. 3.3

Student 4
1. It was often time very difficult to follow what he was doing.
2. If he had a more organized manner, it would be easier to understand.  
3. (left blank)
4. very time consuming
5. C
6. 3.68

Student 5
1. Nice guy, very smart, but he needs to slow down discussion and actually make 
sure we learn something.  
2. This is the hardest class I have ever had.  This is the first time I 
haven’t learned anything.
3. It’s hard.  The teacher just needs to slow down.
4. It required a lot of work than any other class I have ever taken.
5. E
6. 3.6

Student 6
1. Strong, very knowledgeable, enthusiastic, relates chemistry to real life.  
Weak, sometimes rushed, didn’t clarify.
2. Great job, I thought!  For the most part, moved at a good pace, made good 
use of analogies and visual aides.
3. The timing could have been a lot better.  There was poor planning towards 
the end and it made for a lot of stress.  I know this hurt my grade and most 
likely many others.  Great course though overall.
4. Very difficult and time consuming.
5. A
6. (left blank)

Student 7
1. He knows what he’s talking about.  But, his lectures lack any kind of 
flow.  I didn’t really learn from his lectures because none of it made 
sense to me.  I pretty much taught the course to myself by reading the book.  
Dr. Glaser did nothing for me.  I never felt prepared for the test and I read 
every damn page of the book multiple times.
2. Very poor.  There was a complete lack of organization.  He felt that if we 
couldn’t follow him, it was because we didn’t try hard enough or we 
were stupid.  I didn’t appreciate his attitude.  
3. The course was way too much work for a 5 hour course with lab.  This is 
organic chemistry for non majors; teach us something that we might need. 
4. Very poor.  If this course is going to require so much out of us, it needs 
to be a lot better.  
5. E
6. 3.6

Student 8
1. His lectures are often disjointed and not in depth.
2. Not the worst, but close.
3. The CIITN’s and take home test helped my grade but not understanding of 
the material in the textbook.  
4. I thought I was good at chemistry until this class…I got and A in 
Chemistry 2.  This course sucks.
5. E
6. 3.40

Student 9
1. Weak, extreme lack of organization, notes in taken directly from lecture are 
impossible to make sense.
2. Much worse, he expects us to spend half of our time outside of class on this 
class.
3. Organic chemistry is a topic that nobody in this class cares about; spending 
so much time on a topic we dislike is torture.
4. Bad
5. E
6. 3.6

Student 10
1. He does not know how to teach.  I feel that mizzou needs a new teacher for 
this course because his is not teaching us anything that is going to help in 
biochemistry.
2. The lecturer was the worst I have ever had.  He was not organized and his 
lectures were not helpful.  I did not learn anything from him.  This class was 
a waste of my money.
3. (left blank)
4. (left blank)
5. E
6. 3.5

Student 11
1. During lecture make sure to move more slowly.  I liked the projects we 
worked on.
2. He is excited about the class, but explanation is hard to understand.
3. Weak, lecture.  Strong, group work and projects.
4. (left blank)
5. C
6. (left blank)

Student 12
1. Strong, enthusiasm.  Weak, did not care if students learned, verbally 
attacked me, treated you like you were an idiot if you asked a question or got 
a question wrong.  Lacked all forms of organization.  [one sentence omitted.]
2. All chemistry teachers I’ve ever had were horrible teachers and had 
people, but Glaser takes the cake with his verbal assaults and his 
unwillingness to help.
3. Weak, unorganized, 5 hours for a course is long enough, but to tack on CIITN 
meetings is too much.  Strong, variety of ways to earn points (extra credit, 
exams, labs, etc.)
4. Lots more work in here.  Lots of time spent meeting for chemistry, average 
of 10 hours spent on each take home test.
5. E
6. 3.65

Student 13
1. Lectures could be more organized, like have outline or something.  Good 
enthusiasm holds interest well.
2. He’s good except for organization of the course.
3. The course takes up way too much time.  Not enough time to study, go to 
group sessions, do lab reports, work on CIITN and do stuff for 4 other courses.
4. A lot more work involved.
5. C
6. 3.6

Student 14
1. He is interesting as a lecturer and easy to listen to; however, he goes to 
fast sometimes when drawing structures.
2. I think he is about average.  I enjoyed his lectures more, but a lot of 
others provided lecture notes online to print out.  I understand why he does 
not, but it's helpful.  
3. The course material is difficult, but it is supposed to be.  It is a 5 hour 
course, so you have to put in a lot of work.
4. I liked this more than any science class I have ever taken-honestly.
5. A
6. 3.32

Student 15
1. Cannot read his writing, goes to fast and I didn't know what to write 
down.  
2. Okay other classes I have had in science posted note handouts that we filled 
in the information as we went along.  That helped a lot.
3. Hard to understand seems like gibberish.
4. Way too much work out of class. 
5. D
6. 3.28

Student 16
1. Strong, is knowledgeable about chemistry.  Weak, very bad handwriting, hard 
for me to take notes, he also is very fidgety and it was distracting because he 
would always be messing with his pants all the time.  He is very one 
sided- in class discussion, was not open to other opinions.
2. He is probably the worst professor I have ever had.
3. The only thing I liked about his course was lab.  
4. Ridiculous.
5. D
6. 3.3

Student 17
1. The structure of his class was lacking.  He didn't allow much wait time.  
Other opinions weren't taken with understanding.  He verbally attacked me 
in the hallway. [What happened?]]  He is a bad teacher, but very smart.  
2. He sucks at teaching when compared to other professors, and no other 
professors verbally attacked me.
3. Course not organized, lab doesn't mesh with lecture.  Strong, smart and 
enthusiastic.  Weak, constant body touching, verbal assaults, unwillingness to 
help, no answers to my emails, not good at considering other opinions, not 
organized.  
4. This was very work intensive but the lecturer was not good or nice.  This 
class and the lecturer sucked.  Please believe I will not be taking a course 
with him as a teacher ever again.
5. D
6. 3.1

Student 18
1. Make and outline and post it on the bulletin board.
2. More interesting to listen too, but hard to follow.
3. If it weren't for extra credit, I would fail this class.
4. This course is extremely difficult.
5. E
6. 3.4

Student 19
1. Lecture did not help me learn!  Post an outline or something for structure.
2. All other professors post an outline so we know what to prepare for class 
ahead of time.  [Read the book!]]
3. Group work was strong and lab.  If it wasn't for extra credit I would 
fail the class. 
4. Others defiantly better.
5. D
6. 2.75

Student 20
1. The lecture was much unorganized.  I never knew what we were doing.  I 
realize that it is difficult to follow the book.
2. It was more difficult to follow than others.
3. Strong, group work.  Weak, test, CIITN
4. Not as good as others.
5. D
6. 3.6

Student 21
1. I feel I really didn't learn anything from the lecture.
2. Compared to past chemistry classes, this teacher was better/B>.  Other 
science courses, I've had way better.
3. Too much work!  Five hours or not, my life does not evolve around this 
class.
4. Way too much work.  I fell I have learned nothing.
5. C
6. 3.4

Student 22
1. He knows what he's doing and I think he organized the lectures, but I 
don't follow the organizations and I generally don't know what he's 
teaching us about.  I certainty can't follow it.
2. Never had a science course at this level.
3. (left blank)
4. (left blank)
5. C
6. 3.6

Student 23
1. Strong, very knowledgeable.  Weak, difficulty passing on/ teaching 
knowledgeable, he assumes we already know what he's talking about.
2. Low end.  We do not take this class because we want to have it for our 
major.
3. Way demanding on time.  Tests are overwhelming.  There should be a warning 
on this class.
4. Hardest and most intense.  
5. D
6. 3.3

Student 24
1. He had a good knowledgeable of the subject matter but was very hard to 
follow.  Needs to follow the book to provide a power point.
2. He seemed more knowledgeable but was so confusing.  He just needed to write 
on the board "Addition to Alkenes" or whatever ...
3. I enjoyed the course content.  
4. This was the hardest course I've ever taken. 
5. C
6. 3.85

Student 25 [Thanks - Interesting comments!]  ]
1. Awesome enthusiasm.  Went fast sometimes, did a good job preparing us for 
exams, even though they were really hard.
2. Better than chemistry 32 teachers were.
3. Liked to projects and labs a lot to help raise though exam scores.  
4. Thought it was good, and learned a lot. 
5. B
6. 2.06  

Student 26
1. Needs to slow down when lecturing, but his strong quality would be that he 
includes real life scenarios with chemistry and talks about what is going on 
now.  
2. He is very difficult and goes on before everyone knows what he is talking 
about.  It is also hard to read his notes.
3. To spend more time on material, I know it's a lot but if you start out 
lost then you're lost the entire semester.
4. It's been the hardest class I've taken so far.  
5. D
6. 2.9

Student 27
1. He is very enthusiastic about teaching and relating it to the real world.  
The notes are some times hard to follow.
2. I think he is better because he is enthusiastic and relates it.  Others were 
very dull and very boring.
3. The 2 part tests were good.  The grading of the take home section was 
weak.  The CIITN was strong.  
4. It's good, better than most.  
5. B
6. 3.0

Student 28
1. He talks down to students.  He tries to push his own political views on the 
class.  He is not even an American citizen.  
2. (left blank)
3. (left blank)
4. (left blank)
5. C
6. 3.6

Student 29
1. The notes were hard to keep up with, but he was very enthusiastic.
2. It was better than Mr. Silverman's Chemistry 33, but it wasn't much 
better which means the class was hard to follow, but teacher knew what he was 
talking about.
3. Teacher was enthusiastic, but that was about it.
4. Not as good.
5. D
6. 3.0

Student 30
1. Just hard to follow, sometimes could use more explanation.  Was enthusiastic 
and got us to try out problems in class.
2. He's different but it was good.  Like I said just hard to follow 
sometimes.  
3. Sometimes unclear about what to prepare for the exam.
4. Hard  
5. C
6. 2.9

Student 31
1. Very good at real world applications.  Good at making analogies, love the 
visual aids, lots of information on website, old tests very helpful.
2. Extra credit was given.  Very into the subject matter.  Always would answer 
questions outside of class and work problems if you went to him.
3. The lecture overall was great.  The CIITN work was too much.
4. Great, never had a professor use so many ways of teaching/learning.
5. A
6. 3.0

Student 32
1. Very enthusiastic, but sometimes paced a little too fast.  I could 
not keep up.
2. He was by far the most inspiring and intriguing to listen to compared 
to all my previous chemistry teachers.
3. Strong, relating to everyday life.  Weak, just so much material given so 
fast.
4. Much more educational than any of my previous chemistry courses.  
5. B
6. 3.1

Student 33
1. Try to link the lectures with the exams better.
2. Enjoys his work, seems like.
3. (left blank)
4. Good subject matter, medicine presentation.
5. C
6. (left blank)

Student 34
1. Strong, very enthusiastic.  Weak, hard to follow, not organized.
2. He lacks the ability to effectively teach, even though be brings in 
non-traditional methods which are good.
3. Good course, not so much internet.
4. (left blank)
5. C
6. 3.4

Student 35
1. Lectures are abstract and analogies have nothing to with chemistry.  His 
lectures do not flow together and are hard to follow.
2. My other science teachers have been a lot clearer and more prepared.
3. Weak, grading of exams.
4. Material is not as hard but lectures are better.  Grading on exams was 
not fair and sometimes you had to submit more than one regraded.  [Not 
fair in what way?]
5. C
6. 3.8

Student 36
1. Lecturer was sometimes hard to follow.  Used technical terms that were 
sometimes over my head, use of visual aids helped a lot.
2. N/A
3. Grading of exams seemed a little unfair, especially on take home 
portions-be more lenient. 
4. This was one of my hardest courses because I'm not very strong in 
chemistry.
5. C
6. >3.0

Student 37
1. Great enthusiasm, good examples and relating real life.  I feel like 
all my notes are diagrams.  I wish he explained more in words about the diagrams.
2. I wasn't able to follow him as much as I am able to follow my other 
teachers.
3. Too much emphasis on final.  I love Saturday morning science and am 
thankful I got extra credit for it.
4. I think the flow of the class was not as smooth as my other teachers 
[and that was quite intented.]
5. B
6. 3.96

Student 38
1. Glaser is passionate but not well organized.  I found his lectures hard to 
follow.  Lectures could have outlines for students to follow.
2. Dr. Glaser was more freeform than previous instructors.
3. I fell the ext was a good resource.  There was too much emphasis on 
CIITN.
4. It had difficult content, more so than other classes.
5. B
6. 3.79

Student 39
1. Lectures were disorganized and useless for tests.
2. I don't want to hear about you liberal views  
3. Strong, CITTN and labs.  Weak, lectures.
4. This is the first bad review I've seen.  [Review of what?]]
5. C
6. 3.5

Student 40
1. Great deal of knowledge, but lectures are very hard to follow.  Just because 
we may not know all the material does not mean we don't spend enormous 
amounts of time on this class.
2. About as good as most of the terrible chemistry professors at this fine 
institution.
3. Understand that we spend a lot of time on this class. [I do.]
4. Thank God I'm done with Chemistry.
5. C
6. 3.6

Student 41
1. Focus more on harder material, we spent a lot of time on easy material and 
rushed through hard material.
2. He is very enthusiastic and gives great examples.
3. The tests were too hard 
4. It is normal.
5. B
6. 3.0

Student 42
1. He always tried to apply chemistry tour everyday lives and that really 
enhanced my understanding.  
2. He was much better than other lecturers I have had.  Most are very 
boring, 
but he was always enthusiastic which kept it interesting.  
3. It is very difficult class, but its organic chemistry, of course it's 
hard.  Dr. Glaser set up the class so you have many opportunities to earn 
points.  If you are willing to work for them-very helpful.  [That was the 
idea.]
4. (left blank)
5. A
6. 3.3

Student 43
1. Needs to follow a more organized lecture verses jumping from topic to topic.
2. Bad, I didn't learn anything from lectures; I had to teach myself 
everything for the tests.
3. The course was good.  I don't think CIITN was needed.
4. Bad, I didn't learn anything except how to get by with very little work.
5. D
6. 3.5

Student 44
1. His lecture is extremely hard to follow.  He needs to write more on the 
board and explain things slower.
2. He is horrible.  My other science teachers explain things well and 
make sure 
we get it, he doesn't.
3. I like group work.
4. It is horrible.
5. E
6. 3.8

Student 45
1. Strong, knowledge in chemistry.  Weak, disorganized.
2. It was fair.
3. I was well structured; too much material for one semester.
4. It was fair.
5. B
6. 3.30

Student 46
1. Strong, passion.  Weak, lacked structure in lecture.
2. Others were easier to follow-structure.
3. This course made me study more than anytime before.
4. This was the hardest.
5. D
6. 3.2

Student 47
1. Strong, interest.  Weak, needs to write more words on the board, not just 
structures.
2. Harder to follow on what is needed to know.
3. (left blank)
4. Much harder
5. D
6. 3.0

Student 48
1. Strong, Can’t think of any.  Weak, hard to follow.  Improvements, new 
teacher.
2. This was not near as organized as other lectures I have had.
3. Weak, don’t know what he wants us to know for the course.
4. It sucked.
5. C
6. 4.0
• Instructor pushed his political views way too much.

Student 49
1. Weak, lack of organization, distracting rhythm (hair, adjusts parts), does 
not speak loud enough, writes to fast on board, no structure.
2. The most unorganized, unstructured I have ever had.  By far the worst.
3. Decent set up lab, final not so good.  CIITN took up too much time.
4. Took up more time with meetings and CIITN than any other.
5. E
6. 2.9

Student 50
1. Lecture is hard to follow.  Don’t know why we talk about most of the 
things we talked about.
2. (left blank)
3. (left blank)
4. (left blank)
5. E
6. 3.0

Student 51
1. Needs to focus on book material
2. He’s the worst lecturer I’ve ever had.
3. NO CIITN
4. You never know what was going on…hard to learn material.
5. E
6. 3.0


Student 52
1. Great enthusiasm and knowledge of the subject, however not well explained.
2. Fair- it seemed he knew the information a great deal more than most, but 
lacked the strong ability to instruct it.
3. Exams and projects were graded very harshly; preparation for exams was very 
slight.
4. Complicating, but more interesting than most.
5. B
6. 3.0

Student 53
1. Rambled on tangents in class.  Didn’t follow book easily, didn’t 
make sense of material in course, and didn’t teach effectively.
2. Bad, knows the material but cannot teach.
3. Get rid of or minimize amount of extra projects.
4. Very bad course.
5. E
6. 3.3

Student 54
1. Was kind of all over the place.  Did not really know what information was 
important.
2. He was not at all good about explaining important information.
3. Some easy points.  Lot of difficult tests and too much work for too little 
of time.
4. Most difficult ever.
5. D
6. 3.5

Student 55
1. Strong, could hear him well.  Weak, went off on tangents about unrelated 
topics.
2. Jumps around too much during lecture.  Provides examples but no 
explanations.  Worst professor besides Dr. Keller.
3. A lot of easy points, test were too hard.
4. Hard
5. C
6. 2.7

Student 56
1. Not organized enough, hard to read handwriting.
2. (left blank)
3. (left blank)
4. (left blank)
5. C
6. 3.0


Student 57
1. Doesn’t explain very well.
2. Better than Adams and Silverman
3. (left blank)
4. (left blank)
5. C
6. 3.83

Student 58
1. Knows material 
2. Better than most chem. lecture
3. Strong, good material.  Weak, a lot of CIITN stuff
4. Good, CIITN was a pain
5. C
6. 3.4

Student 59
1. Models were helpful, take home helped low in class exam scores.
2. Power point would have been helpful.
3. Follow text—we had to buy it.
4. Lecturer too hard to follow.
5. C-
6. 3.6

Student 60
1. Sometime very hard to understand.  Both in hearing and reading chalkboard.
2. Very hard to understand and follow in the book.
3. (left blank)
4. The idea behind the course was very good.  Need a little more structure.
5. C
6. 3.0

Student 61
1. A nice person, but not a good professor.  * And Silverman would not be any 
better for the course.
2. A lot of work is given.
3. Students need to be more aware of what is going on in class.
4. A lot of work.
5. C
6. (left blank)

Student 62
1. He is very enthusiastic and knowledgeable, but he is horrible at conveying 
that knowledge.  He is very much disorganized in his presentation of material.
2. Again, one of the most knowledgeable, but one of the most incompetent 
teachers.
3. The course is good.
4. It is better than most, not counting instruction.
5. D
6. (left blank)

Student 63
1. Strong, excited about science/educating.  Weak, couldn’t see the board 
as well when he drew models.
2. No use of overheads/visuals- didn’t seem to follow the book as much.
3. Weak, lots of material outside irrelevant to the book.
4. Too much outside of class work.
5. C
6. 3.0

Student 64
1. Hard to follow, little explanations for work put on the board.
2. (left blank)
3. Extra credit, very strong.
4. Harder and more outside work.
5. D
6. 3.2

Student 65
1. No organization during lecture.  No interest in whether students learned 
material.
2. The worst chemistry professor, I have ever had.
3. Teach to the test.
4. Too much of a time commitment for a 5 hour class.
5. E
6. 3.5

Student 66
1. Interesting formats, opinions, presentation, a bit strong at times.
2. He knows what works, we may not like it, but he knows.
3. Strong foundations/very informative, time constraints seemed harsh.
4. Good course, somewhat difficult material, but good course.
5. B
6. 2.3

Student 67
1. Though very excited about chemistry.  The subject matter is already 
confusing and for non majors the pace is very fast and time was n ot spent 
explaining much of anything in great details.
2. (left blank)
3. (left blank)
4. (left blank)
5. C
6. 3.5

Student 68
1. The lectures did not seem to have any flow to them.  Disorganized and 
chaotic.
2. Hard to follow.
3. I did not learn very much at all in this course.
4. (left blank)
5. D
6. 2.8

Student 69
1. Knowledge of subject, enthusiasm.
2. One of the better science professors.
3. Too much busy work, not related to class material - - CIITN.
4. CIITN took to long and took away from course.
5. C
6. 2.8

Student 70
1. No strong relationship between tests and lectures.
2. Never
3. More organized and topics need to be covered fully.
4. One of the worst.
5. D
6. 3.4

Student 71
1. Jumped around too much.
2. About the same.
3. Lots of different to go over at same time.
4. About the same.
5. B
6. 3.4

Student 72
1. Goes a little too fast.
2. Better than Adams and Silverman.
3. Organic chemistry is not so bad.
4. Much better than Chemistry 32 and 33.
5. A
6. 3.3

Student 73
1. Lacks organization and clarity.
2. He is really interesting.
3. Interesting, more organized lecture
4. It’s hard and lecture notes don’t make any sense.
5. C
6. 3.45

Student 74
1. Good use of real world examples.  Explanations of core subjects cut short o 
talk about random stuff.
2. Good
3. (left blank)
4. Good
5. B
6. 3.0

Student 75
1. Doesn’t have an outline, enthusiastic.
2. He compares favorably.
3. Eliminate CIITN one and two.
4. Good
5. B
6. 3.8

Student 76
1. Dr. Glaser has great passion for chemistry; he needs to be more organized.
2. About equal chemists just aren’t organized.
3. The exams are difficult, take homes are impossible.
4. Difficult course, exams should be cured.
5. C
6. 3.2

Student 77
1. Notes hard to follow, not enough writing to much, picture drawing.
2. (left blank)
3. (left blank)
4. (left blank)
5. C
6. 2.7

Student 78
1. Strong, enthusiasm.  Weak, lack of organization.
2. Poor
3. (left blank)
4. very poor
5. E
6. 2.4

Student 79
1. (left blank)
2. (left blank)
3. (left blank)
4. (left blank)
5. C
6. 3.0

Student 80
1. He cannot convey the material in a manner that makes sense.  There is 
absolutely no structure to this course (lecture)
2. HORRIBLE- he should be fire.
3. Pretty bad, did not get anything out of it.
4. Course from hell.  Would not recommend this to anyone unless it is 
absolutely required. 
5. E
6. 3.4

Student 81
1. (left blank)
2. (left blank)
3. (left blank)
4. The worst class I’ve ever taken.
5. E
6. 4.0
This course- - hard material but I would be capable of completing it.  However, 
Dr. Glaser is defiantly the worst teacher I’ve ever had.  he had no 
structure in the classroom.
	-  doesn’t want to see/understand the students at their level.
	-  I probably taught myself 90% of the material 
	-   Class was worthless – I taught myself more than he taught me.
-  I think it’s pathetic when a professor has to offer so much extra credit 
in order   
   for the students to pass and do okay in the class.
 	-  His take home exams were pointless.  They were mainly about seeing 
how well 
   you are at researching.  The material didn’t relate to what were 
learning.


Student 82
1. Strong, is knowledgeable about chemistry.  Weak, very bad handwriting, hard 
for me to take notes, he also is very fidgety and it was distracting because he 
would always be messing with his pants all the time, he is very one sided in a 
class discussions was not open to other opinions.
2. He is probably the worst professor I have ever had.
3. The only thing I liked about his course was the lab.
4. Ridiculous.
5. D
6. 3.3
I realize this is a five hour course and we have to work at it, but having to 
spend 9-10 hours on a take home test and go to extra meetings for the group 
work is too much when we have other classes and some people have jobs.
He really disturbed me because he often made perverted comments and he 
constantly messing with his pants.

Student 83
1. See attached.
2. The other science professors have explained material clearly.
3. See attached.
4. Other courses have been worth while.
5. E
6. 4.0
This course has been the worst academic experience that I have ever had.  I 
enrolled in the course because there are certain pieces of information about 
chemistry that I need for subsequent courses and for my eventual career.  
Trying to think back to what knowledge I have gained form this course, I 
don’t come up with anything solid without referring to my book.
There are two basic problems with the course and numerous minor ones.  One 
major obstacle here is the professor (and a least one of his TA) lack of 
ability to clearly communicate 1) organization of the course material and 2) 
the course material itself.  The other fatal flaw is the professor’s faulty 
view of how a course of this type should be approached.
As to this lack of communicative abilities: it’s not his mispronunciations 
of words, although at times that is an issue, but rather much more basic skills 
that he is lacking.  He puts a great deal of information into his lengthy 
syllabus and extensive websites (his own and Blackboard), but he does not do 
the simple things that are necessary for students to learn.  Throughout a good 
part of the course I was wondering whether I really had the correct textbook, 
whether he was basing the course on the textbook that we ere require to buy.  
His website refers to various other chemistry textbooks.  Finally, partway 
through the course, he deigned to explain, that he has been jumping around in 
the textbook, even though the schedule promises to handle the material 
sequentially.  He also uses different terms in lecture than are in the book.  
This makes is difficult for students to research items on their own, if they do 
not understand / do not get enough information or practice from the lectures.
There should be one website for the course (WEBCT) and amount of information 
presented on the website should be vastly decreased.  Grading is inconsistent 
(also WAY too slow) and hard to understand and learn from.  Tests are returned 
covered with various markings, some meaning that they were seen.  However, 
there is no system to the marks or at least there is no system than can be 
readily deciphered by those who were not clued in (the students).  If the 
professor himself actually writes words on the exams, they are often illegible.  
In addition, many questions posed to the instructional team were left 
unanswered.
As the professor’s approach: he wants students to use the higher critical 
thinking skills of Bloom’s Taxonomy by applying organic chemistry to 
current news.  There are a couple of basic flaws with this idea.  One: 
education professionals have confirmed what I suspected: for any given area one 
should master the lower levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy before attempting the 
upper levels.  For this reason, I think that maybe the CIITN approach could be 
useful in an upper level course where no one is actually trying to learn 
chemistry (rather the course would focus on applied chemistry).  However 
students enroll in this course in order to learn the basics of organic 
chemistry.  Students who enroll in this course have no organic chemistry before 
entering the course.  Its ill advised to ask them to apply what they have not 
yet learned.  The result that we have experienced is that we have practiced 
writing and googling, but we don’t know the chemical information that we 
will need for subsequent courses.  Thus, the two problems with this approach 
are that students are not equipped for this work and students do not acquire 
the chemical knowledge that they need.

I mentioned that the students practice writing during the course.  However, 
they do not receive instruction in writing, nor do they get their questions 
about writing answered.  Standards for editing are ill defined and seem to be 
based simply on the stylistic notions of or two members of the instructional 
staff.  Comments of the instructional staff might be better accepted, if the 
qualifications of the instructional staff were made clear.  Many students 
wondered why Ms. Carson, who was introduced to us as an education expert (grad. 
student?), was grading our chemistry papers.  We assume that she is a writing 
expert.  Many also wondered why an undergraduate was grading our chemistry 
papers.

By the way, the weekly meetings to discuss our progress with the course are a 
waste of time.  Soon after the course started, students began bringing up 
criticisms which I mention here.  These problems were noted during the weekly 
meetings, but there was never any reaction from the staff.  

I would like to comment on the professor’s attitude toward students.  I 
think that the professor may want to apply Steven Krashen’s idea of the 
affective filter toward his classroom.  Basically, the professor displays a 
negative attitude toward the students, I believe students react accordingly and 
consequently find it difficult to be open to learning anything from the course.  
That is, after a certain point of disappointment with the course students close 
themselves off to the possibility that something worthwhile may happen.  I 
understand that the professor wants to work against self-esteem inflation as 
practiced in high schools, but I don’t think that he needs to actively work 
to deflate students self-image.  (I imagine he will appreciate or at least 
respect this critical review that I write here- I only know of one instance 
where he gave me unmitigated praise in class.)  At this point we are left with 
a student body who must meet situations in one of two ways: either Dr. Glaser 
is correct and the students are unable to read, write and think logically or 
Dr. Glaser is incorrect and much of this course has been a waste of energy.

The professor has very strong opinions that he would consider to be the truth.  
In some cases, students are graded on whether they have been able to guess his 
opinion and express it accordingly on tests.

The group work does not work.  Students are required to meet with 3 or 5 people 
regularly.  Students must form groups at the beginning of the semester with 
likely total strangers.  Group members go home on weekends (Thursday 
afternoon!), work, don’t want to study, are incompetent, etc.  I find it 
irresponsible of Dr. Glaser to leave some of the grading of student work in the 
hands of other students.  Some students learn their lessons well from Dr. 
Glaser and award very few points for student’s projects.  Students who 
receive such low grades are told to roll with punches, even though it may mean 
that they will not be admitted to competitive courses of study.  In other 
cases, students do not take the grading seriously and do not provide 
constructive comments.  In some cases, students even assign grades in a 
completely arbitrary manner.  I think that it is wrong of Dr. Glaser to not be 
involved in the grading of the final student project.  

The new projects take up so much time that students do not have time to study 
the textbook on a regular basis.  Dr. Glaser claims that this course is one of 
the best ever.  I would like to know whether he has done a control study.  I 
would like to know whether he has given the same test of chemical knowledge 
(not current events, but rather the chemistry which one must know in order to 
continue taking courses in the Chemistry department) to a group of students who 
take such a course with CIITN and without CIITN.  I would like to see the 
results.  It seems to be that if CIITN is to be proposed as a national model, 
then such a control study is a minimal requirement.

Much of our time was spent using Google.  I don’t see this as a worthwhile 
expenditure of major time during a course.  Perhaps one could argue that we 
learned to find some sources to be more realistic than others.  However, we 
were given no instruction on how to evaluate Internet information (Are the New 
York Tomes and Bild-Onliine of equivalent value?), yet, students did lose 
points when they were misled by unrealiable sources, or what Dr. Glaser 
considered to be unreliable sources.  We are left to wonder whether those 
sources would be considered reliable by other chemists.  Some of the test 
questions led students to spend many hours searching for information (tholin 
this week!) that turned out to be unnecessary.  

A significant amount of time was spend on wondering, researching, and guessing 
about such things as ASC format, alignment of models in ChemDraw, how to get 24 
point font, html.  I believe that 2050 should be devoted to chemical groups and 
reactions, not such formal aspects.

Luckily there are extra credit opportunities.  I attended a number of extra 
credit lectures and they were (generally) the most interesting and worthwhile 
opportunities of this course.  I am disturbed that although Dr. Glaser claimed 
that he would check attendance at the extra credit lecturers, I believe he only 
attended on or tow of these lectures.  There was nothing to prevent people from 
signing names of their absent friends on the attendance sheets, nothing to 
prevent people from signing their names and leaving before lecture started.  
These practices were widespread.

It’s non-sensical that Dr. Glaser has nothing to do with the lab final.  He 
is, in the final analysis, the person responsible for this course.  He should 
be able to have input on all facets of the course.  It’s ridiculous that he 
claims that he was unable to get an answer hey for the practice final that he 
was able to procure and that he unable to influence the content of the lab 
final.

In summary, I propose that he retire the CIITN projects at least temporarily 
and concentrate on learning to do the basic job of communication chemistry 
effectively.  A radical step would be to study the basic principles of 
psychology and organization that make up effective public speaking.  More 
realistically, he could observe other professors, such as Dr. Tanner.



Student 84
1. Please see attached sheet
2. Please see attached sheet
3. Please see attached sheet…make us learn organic chemistry.
4. Worst ever
5. E
6. 3.85

Dr. Glaser is not doubt and excellent researcher, but in my opinion, should not 
hold a teaching position.  He is the worst educator I have ever encountered 
anywhere.  He is arrogant (tried to tell his students how they should live 
their lives), condescending (putting students on the spot during class and, in 
my opinion, embarrassing them when they didn’t know an answer), and 
offensive (used curse words like ‘bastards’ and ‘godammit’ 
during class).  The assignments or lack thereof, were not at all evaluative of 
what we were to have learned in class; neither were half of the tests.  I 
don’t care what Dr. Glaser or the TA’s think, the take home sections 
were merely proving that we knew how to use the internet.  “Will you buy a 
carbon monoxide detector after reading this information?”  Why is that a 
test question?  That question was worth actual points.  I could have easily 
answered that question years before having taken this class.  Part of the tests 
didn’t even cover what we should have learned; they were about completely 
new topics.  The group workshops were a waste of time.  The group projects 
expected way too much of a group of college students.  Granted, they were not 
impossible, but it is just stupid to expect 5 or so college students to be able 
to get together as often as we were expected to complete these projects.  At 
some point, people are just going to get screwed over.  I realize that there 
was an intragroup peer review for these projects, but these were not fair 
either.  Because not all of the points had to be divvied out, a group member 
could give the other members as low a score as he wanted to, whether or not the 
deserve the score.  The grading on the final group project was completely 
arbitrary; there was no standard.  Had one person looked at all of the projects 
and all of the grading and given the final word, it would have been fair.  But 
our grade was entirely dependent on which students graded our projects.  
I’m not even complaining about our project graders, ours were quite good.  
But the way these group projects are done was horrible and just plain unfair.  
Dr. Glaser would say that life is unfair.  That’s all fine and dandy, but 
grading is not supposed to be unfair.  And speaking of grading, I’m not 
even sure he did too much of it for this, his, class.  Cece and Kathleen graded 
the projects, TA’s graded test questions…what exactly did Dr. Glaser do?  
We didn’t have any other assignments.  No problems from the book, no 
guidance, no lecture outlines, nothing.  My last chemistry professor was 
excellent.  He held his own tutoring sessions once a week for anyone to come 
ask questions.  He gave us online quizzes every few weeks.  He gave us problems 
from the book to do (they weren’t graded but he posted the answers so we 
could ask questions if we had them).  He gave us lecture outlines.  All of this 
to make sure that we were understanding the material.  Dr. Glaser did nothing 
of this sort.  I realize he is a busy man, but maybe this means he is not 
qualified to be an educator?  If he cannot take out enough time to make sure 
his students are properly learning his material, he should not be a teacher.  
Stick to research!  He is responsible for our education.  And he did not take 
their responsibility seriously enough.  I sent him an e-mail about concerns 
about the class, and he emailed me back, basically telling me I was wrong.  I 
am his student, I am experiencing his “teaching”, and he’s telling 
me that my opinion is wrong?  Now, there is something wrong with that.  I 
complained that it is hard to take notes during lecture, that when I looked at 
them later on I couldn’t understand or follow them.  Then, he walks around 
the class sometime in November to see that half the student’s aren’t 
even taking notes, and he is just shocked.  Hello!!! Listen to your students!  
He didn’t even give is study guides for tests.  We asked him for one for 
the first test and he said he would, then literally decided he didn’t want 
to because he didn’t want to limit the subject matter.  Um…isn’t 
that the point?  Many students did not know what or how to study.  How is that 
effective teaching?  It was as if he believed that it would be cheating for him 
to tell us what to know.  How else are we supposed to learn it?  We can’t 
read minds.  What is the difference if he tells us what to study?  At least we 
would be learning, and after all, isn’t that the point of class?  I hear 
that some students really liked the class and learned a lot.  Well, really good 
for them.  I truly wish I could have been one of them.  I really enjoyed 
chemistry 32, although it was very challenging, and I did well.  I expected the 
same from this class, but it was just frustrating, and there is a fine line 
between a class that is challenging and a class that is just ridiculous…a 
pain in my ass, frankly.  I couldn’t even work hard at this class because 
of the severe lack of guidance from Dr. Glaser.  It seemed as if he didn’t 
put much effort into teaching, so I didn’t feel like putting much effort 
into studying.  I am going into biochemistry next semester, and I am scared!  
Scared about what I should know that I don’t because of this teacher.  I 
expected to learn more about organic chemistry, and instead I learned about how 
Dr. Glaser thinks we should think and act.  He needs to be in an area where he 
is much better suited.  The averages on his tests are horrible, he dished out 
so much extra credit that was irrelevant to chemistry that I didn’t work 
nearly as hard as I should have,  He was utterly ineffective as an educator.