The University of Missouri at Columbia, Chemistry 210, Organic Chemistry I, FS00

Teaching Evaluations - Overall Rating 2.89

Criteria of evaluation FS00 SS99 WS99 WS97 FS92 WS92 FS91
Organization and preparation of lectures and discussions 3.50 3.85 3.55 3.54 3.40 3.39 3.70
Instructor's enthusiasm for the subject matter 3.59 3.88 3.70 3.76 3.54 3.60 3.75
Helpfulness in answering questions and clarifying points 2.61 3.55 2.75 2.74 2.54 2.62 2.92
Ability to lecture in a manner which is easily followed 2.49 3.40 2.50 2.32 2.45 2.79 2.98
Ability to stimulate interest in the subject 2.53 3.47 2.82 2.66 2.67 2.90 2.91
Overall rating of the instructor 2.87 3.61 3.01 3.02 2.94 3.00 3.24
Your rating of how much you have learned 2.62 3.27 2.46 2.74 2.75 3.20 2.90
Overall rating of the course 2.61 3.38 -.-- 2.71 2.77 -.-- 2.88
Overall rating 2.89 3.57 2.97 2.97 2.90 3.05 3.19




QUESTIONS
1. List strong and weak features of the lecturer and include
   suggestions for improvement.
2. Compare the lecturer to other you hove had (especially with 
   those in science courses at this level...)
3. List the strong and weal 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 for Chemistry 210
[Responses are complete and verbatim.  Emphasis by way of bold face ours]

1.
1. A V is very good.  Online notes are great.  Explanation of questions poor.
2. Much better than most.
3. Interesting material but there is a lot to cover.
4. This was good.
5. B
6. 2.8

2.
2. Difficult to understand, lectures too quick, knows and likes the subject 
    matter.
3. Dr. Glaser feels that his course is more important than others the   
    students might be taking.  When asked about the possibility of moving
    a review due to large numbers in another class, he said that the class
    was easy and we should just read our books.
4. Too much content, not enough assistance.  A discussion section would be 
    very beneficial.  Non absolute grading would be of assistance.
5. Much more difficult than others I have taken.
6. D
7. 2.7

3.
1. He needs a PA system or something of that nature because he doesn't 
    talk loud enough to be heard throughout the room.
2. He was enthusiastic and his knowledge was beyond impressive.  I've
    only heard good things about him.
3. The tests were hard but that is more my fault than his.
4. The course was good.  I didn't feel to rushed (crammed with info.).  
    A good course.
5. A
6. 3.5

4.
1. Wasn't able to present material in an alternative format if students    
    weren't able to understand.  Went over material way too fast.
2. Used absolute grading which should not be used in an upper level 
    chemistry or science class.
3. A lab should be included; more TA's should be included; more questions
    quizzes should be added to keep students on top of their studying. 
4. It was fair.
5. C
6. 2.6

5.  
1. I think that he should use a microphone because sometimes it was really  
    hard to hear what was being said.  The review sessions were pretty
    helpful.
2.  
3.
4.
5. C
6. 2.5

6.
1. The strong features of the lecturer were the way he presented the 
    material and sometimes the examples that were given, which made it
    easier to follow his lecture for the day.  I felt his interests in 
   the subject made it easier to understand and show at times how much he
   wanted us to learn this material.  The weak features is the way he 
    pronounces things, also when asking him to explain something after
    lecture hours he asks as if there is a problem.  And his tests.
2. The other lectures were better at times and worse at times.  Just as
    this lecture was.
3. The tests were at times not the way the instructor said it would be.  
    of the material covered was harder to follow than others.  It was a
    difficult course.
4. The worst course
5. B
6. 3.0

7.
1. The notes didn't always follow the book very clearly and it was hard to 
    know what to study for the tests because Dr. Glaser wasn't specific  
    about the compounds we needed to know.
2. I couldn't learn from him.
3. Slow it down a little, give more opportunities for points.
4. The course moves very quickly and can be difficult to keep up with.  This
    was also my first science.
5. D
6. 3.0

8.
1. Throughly understands subject matter but does not convey it - difficult 
    to learn from.  Does not seem to care whether students learn - blames
    them for not studying enough regardless.
2. Least favorite thus for b/c in other classes.  I still learned something 
    even if I didn't like the instructor - but not in this case.
3. This is only a three hour course but the time required to barely keep up.  
    Exceeded that of a 5 hr. course.  I have learned almost nothing.
4. Least favorite of any taken at MU.  Too much for three hours with all 
    the internet work, etc.
5. D
6. 3.45

9.
1. Weak feature is drilling on reaction chemistry.  Arrow pushing?  Where is  
    it? May observe values required for memorization and tests.
2. Lecturer extremely knowledgable, but not great at conveying the  
    knowledge to class.  Work on reaction chemistry and mechanisms.
3. The quality of this class is directly proportional to the instructors
    teaching abilities.  If a good teacher is present then material would
    be much more comprehendable.  
4. The course is difficult because of confusing instructor.
5. D
6. 3.3

10.
1. Could use a microphone.  Ending class late is a HUGE inconvenience for 
    those who have classes further away (directly after this class).
2.  
3.
4. 
5. B 
6. 3.85  

11.
1.  Weak:  doesn't speak clearly and is often too quiet.
2.
3.  It would be useful to have more TA's.
4. 
5.  B
6.  3.7

12.
1. Very enthusiastic about subject;  difficult to comprehend some of his 
     ideas (poorly explained).
2. Sometimes difficult to understand but tried very hard to communicate
     his ideas.
3. Sometimes this course can become dry.  Maybe it could use something
     to excite it.
4.
5.  C
6.  3.2

13.
1. I had some difficulty in this course and it was difficult to get help form 
     him and the course objectives and student expectations were very 
     unclear.  Also, the syllabus was extremely difficult to follow.  It
     has unnecesary info. and is missing some of the most important info.     
     Announcements made at the beginning of class were easy to miss and 
     almost impossible to get after-the-fact.
2. Not as interesting and not nearly as concerned with students 
     understanding or grades as other professors.
3.  (Part of question one)
4. Better than Chem 33 because its easier but harder than Chem 31 or
     Chem 32.
5. C
6. 3.0

14.
1. Sometimes it seemed like he had to remember things and it would take 2 
    or 3 times to say it correctly.  Practice reading the overheads before
    class.
2. I have had better and I have had worse.  The pre-typed notes made it
    easier to follow.
3. Maybe listing reactions or subtopics for exams.  Remove notes that we
    don't need/use.  We covered more material at a faster pace towards
    the end.
4. I think the course as a whole is relative to the professor.  Chem 32 
    was better and Chem 33 was worse.
5. C
6. 3.65

15.
1. He never explained anything to the point where the class understood.
    His goal seemed more to cover as much material as possible without 
    going into detail about the subject.  I feel like he read his notes
    out loud and only reminded himself of what was there, not teaching the
    materialat all.
2. I think in an upper level course, and instructor should be more
    concerned with whether or not the students are learning.  I think he
    would like higher averages, but he doesn't want to teach better to
    make them higher.
3. I base the course on the instructor.
4. It was difficult.  A weed-out I'm sure.
5. C
6.  3.5

16.
1.  Strong:  Organization of notes.  Weak:  Talks too soft.
2.  Better than Chem 33.
3.  Hard info.
4.  Harder.
5.  B
6.  3.3

17. 
1.  Knows material, needs microphone so everyone can hear.  He likes 
	teaching and what he teaches.
2.  This is my first science course at Mizzou.  However, he is superior to the
	Organic Chem professor I had before.  He doesn't go to fast or slow.
3.  Too much material.  Cut back on the online stuff.  Materials chosen were 
	good and book is reader-friendly.
4.  Too much material for a 3-credit hr. course.
5.  A
6.  3.41

18.	
1. He is a little hard to understand sometimes, but he is very enthusiastic  
      and he curves, I hope.
2. He is one of the better professor in the science courses,
      especially chemistry.
3. No complaints.
4. I enjoyed it because this is a course I wanted to take.
5. A
6. 2.9

19.
1. Strong:  Good outside sources, lots of different ways to learn.
    Weak:  May need a page on web of major points.
2. I like that there were several ways we could learn the material
    (computer, notes, lecture, web destinations and visualization
    centers.)
3. It's a good course, covers lots of material
4. Learned more in this course than most others.
5. B
6.  3.75

20.
1. His English could be better.  He loves what he is doing, very enthusiastic. 
     He needs either to talk louder or use a microphone.  He was always 
     willing to help whenever he could.
2. One of the most enthusiastic professors;  the class was very boring and 
     he was hard to understand.
3. Very hard and not very interesting.
4. Not as interesting and a lot harder.
5. C
6. 2.44

21.
1. Hard to hear.  Notes:  Goes too fast and notes do not match with the
    book well.
2. About the same or a little worse.
3. Better notes to follow are needed but do not like absolute grading.
4. I did not like this course as much as the others.
5. C
6. 3.843

22.  
1. He is always prepared for class and ready to teach.  He needs to expand 
    on some of his points more so we know what he is talking about.
2. Other instructors went into more detail so we could understand the 
    material better.
3.  
4. The course was difficult, but not unbearable.
5. C
6. 2.5

23.
1.  Strong:  Had great reviews, allows extra credit, easy to ask
     questions through e-mail and quick responses.
     Weak:  Glaser is only easy to follow at the reviews, not in lecture.
2.
3.
4.
5.  B
6.  3.9

24.
1. Did not isolate in a clear manor the important details to know for the 
     class.  Info. was in the notes jumbled with unimportant info.  Needs
     to reiterate main subjects over and over and just assume everyone
     knows it and move on.
2.  
3. Need more test like review questions.  Did not find the multiple
    choice practice exams very helpful.
4. I found it harder to pull out the important information from lecture
    and notes than from other classes.
5. B
6. 2.8

25.  
1.  A strong feature would be the Review Sessions.
2.  
3.
4.
5.  C
6.  2.6

26.
1. His voice was easy to understand and loud enough to hear.  He gave many
     examples and told students exactly what they needed to know for the 
     exams.  He was always willing to help.  Don't expect students
     to check their e-mail everyday and do quite so much on the web.
2. He is the best I have had yet.
3. It was interesting and challenging.  It was a lot of work but there
    isn't  much you can do to change that.
4. It is better than most.
5. A
6. 3.4

27.
1.  Expects a lot from students.  Hard tests;  good enthusuiam.
2.  Fair
3.  Large amount of info. to be covered.
4.  Fair
5.  C
6.  2.8

28.  
1.  He was knowledgeable on the materials, but he had to rush through stuff 
	too much.
2.  He compares well to other chemistry professors.
3.  Too much material to memorize for 3 credit hrs.  The classes pace was
	too fast.
4.  
5.  C
6.  2.3

29.
1. Very well organized.  Makes it clear what you need to learn. 
     It would be helpful if you drew the reaction mechanisms on the board
     the first time we learned them because they can be hard to understand
     from the printed out notes alone.
2. Very good, solid teacher;  stayed to his agenda and was good with the 
     students.
3. Memorization of catalysts seems not necessary.  The final product
     arrangement should be stressed instead.
4. Highly demanding but fair.
5. B
6. 3.48

30.
1.  Good lecturer, however it is often hard to hear sitting even in the
	middle of the hall.  Could possibly use a microphone.
2.  Better than the other chemistry professors that I have had, easier
     to follow.
3.  The course material was difficult though not impossible, but I think that
	the tests were often written too hard.
4.  The material is presented better than in other chemistry tests, but 
	again, the test often cover things that we barley grazed over.
5.  B
6.  3.1

31.
1.  The instructor was very cold and unwilling to help when one would come
	to his office hrs.  He somewhat scared me off so that I would not come
	back.
2.  He knew what he was talking about but often did not lecture so that 
	others would understand.  He expected us to know everything and
	thought you were dumb if you did not understand the material.
3.  Good course, but could possibly not be so detailed.  The basics were not
	important at all;  only fine details.
4.  Not good;  could use some serious changes to improve it.  It is not a good
	thing when only half the students attend lecture.
5.  C
6.  3.30

32.  
1.  Very well prepared.
2.  He is very enthusiastic.
3.  A lot of work, but worth it.
4.  Tough
5.  A
6.  2.8

33.
1. Strong point was using on-line resources, such as the online posted notes 
	in his lectures so students could follow along.
2.  Overall a good lecturer.
3.  Overall, the was a lot of information presented for only having 3 
        lectures in a week, would be better with 4 or 5 lectures a week so
        ideas could be discussed and explained better.
4.  
5.  B
6.  3.5

34.
1.  Doesn't explain things enough.  When one is not sure of things he says, 
	you understand, good".
2.  I find him not as good as a lecturer, but a lot easier tests.  This  is a 
	good thing.
3.  Good course.  Too much online info. though.
4.  Better than physics.
5.  B
6.  3

35.
1.  Strong:  enthusiastic, knowledgeable, made many types of materials
	available to us.  Helpful, cared about our performances.
	Weak:  Went too fast in lecture, but I realize there was a time
	constraint, wanted too much of us at times for how fast the lecturer
	went-slow down.
2.  Good:  He made himself available to help more so than my other 
	chemistry professors and offered many services to help us.  
        He motivated us to do our best and study really hard.
3.  This course was too difficult for me.  I can see why this is rumored
	to be the weed-out course.  I was not impressed by the text-was 
	contradictory at times to the lecturer and to itself;  needs to be
	more time and less material.
4.  Most difficult I have ever taken.
5.  C
6.  3.1

36.  
1.  Strong:  Good enthusiasm, realistic expectations, great organization, 
	great web page, genuine  concern for students for teaching.
	Weak:  Lectures sometimes hard to follow, sometimes unrealistic
	expectations of work load.
2.  He's one of the best I've had.  The webpage was amazing and students
	could get out of the class whatever they put into it.  He had helpful
	reviews, interacted with us and enhanced our learning with group
	collaborations.  He genuinely wanted everyone to learn and excel.
3.  Strong:  Good text, good organization, lots of material (applicable)
	Weak:  Sometimes difficult to understand.
4.  Lots of work and memorization but well organized (good text).
5.  B
6.  3.25

37.
1.  Strong:  Notes already on web.  Weak:  Did not like alcohol.
2.  Other classed had demonstration.
3.  No NMR or FR
4.  The same as the other.
5.  C
6.  3.11

38.
1.  Weak:  Answering question in class;  people raise hands and he doesn't see
	them.
2.  Did fine
3.  Ok
4.  Ok
5.  B
6.  3.3

39.
1.  Could be more thorough when explaining notes.  Having notes on-line really
	helps if I can't attend class.
2.  Was to particular to every detail;  the memorization of BDE lengths and 
	so fourth aren't really used that readily.
3.  
4.  About the same (better than physics).
5.  C
6.  3.0

40.  
1.  Sometimes he spent too much time on easy things and too little on 
	harder topics.
2.  He is pretty good;  not quiet so much a Professor Keller, but was good.
	He keeps things pretty interesting.
3.  It seems to be a good course.  I liked not having a lab.  I might try to 
	pace it better.  We spent lots of time on easy stuff and not as much 
        time on the hard stuff.
4.  It is about the same as far as time need per credit hour.
5.  A
6.  3.85

41.
1.  Can't read the writing on the chalkboard.  Notes on web are good.
2.  About the same
3.  A lot of material
4.  Similar
5.  C
6.  3.3

42.  
1.  Strong:  Lectures, on-line work, v. centers, 
     Notes help out a lot;  are suggested for 212-if they don't
     already have them.  Allows one to pay attention without distract. 
2.  Was able to talk about information that was relevant in our world.
      News stuff that was on-line;  great.
3.  Course is fine;  low averages come from people not studying enough.
4.  Best chemistry course I have ever taken.
5.  A
6.  3.65

43.
1.  Strong:  Good example but they were explained too quickly.
2.  Great teacher but need to explain examples better.
3.  Good class but Organic Chemistry is a boring subject that is hard.
4.  Best chemistry class I have taken in terms of what I have learned.
5.  B
6.  3.9

44. 
1.  Speaks clearly and explanations are great when a question is brought
	up.  Goes a little too fast sometimes and assumes everyone already
	knows some concepts which are difficult and could use reviewing.
2.  Lectures get monotonous with the overheads.  Do more problems in
	class on the board.  Do some demos in class if possible.
3.  Way too much web stuff.  It was hard to always keep up with 
	"assignments" on the web and the text.  Do away with the multiple
	choice stuff on web if its not going to be on a test.  The format
	on Exam 3 was nothing like the old exams.
4.  It was ok.  Subject matter is boring.  I don't like chemistry very
	much.
5.  B
6.  4.7

45.
1.  Too much web-based info.
2.  Good to superior 
3.  Make it a 4 hr. course.
4.  
5.  A
6.  4.0

46.
1.  Strong:  Very knowledgeable
     Weak:  Speak to more people.  You seem to teach to those in the first rows.
2.  As good if not better.
3.  I don't like the way we go through notes;  hard to take in info. just 
     flipping through 30 pages everyday.
4.  Moves pretty fast.
5.  B
6.  3.1

47.
1.  I don't like all of the online stuff.  It's too much.  This class is hard 
     enough and he probably thinks it helps but it just overloads.  Too
     much work for a 3 hr. class.
2.  Harder to follow;  he definitely knows a lot but I think maybe 
     bring it to our level a bit more.  Don't be so vague.
3.  
4.  Very difficult
5.  C
6.  3.4

48.
1.  He could explain notes better and give better examples in class.  It was 
	helpful to have the notes available in class.
2.  Compared with others, I've heard that he was okay;  there is room for
	improvement.
3.  The concepts were hard, but it could be understood with work.
4.  Compared with the other courses, this has been one of the most difficult
	ones.
5.  C
6.  3.0

49.
1.  The lectures had an equal balance to them.
2.  He knows his stuff and is willing to work to make sure chemistry is
	understood.  I think he is a good instructor.
3.  Strong point was the review sessions.
4.  This is one of the better chemistry classes I have taken.
5.  B
6.  2.8

50.
1.  Strong:  Points curves a to relate Organic Chemistry to the outside world.
2.  Dr. Glaser is one of the better instructors I have had.
3.  I like the absolute grading.
4.  
5.  A
6.  3.9

51.
1. Strong:  I really appreciated his enthusiasm to get us to learn, and
     to try to help us in many ways earn high grades. 
     Weak:  His approach to correcting us is sometimes a little demanding.  
     Sometimes he makes us feel stupid.
2. Compared to my Bio 10 Professor, he is excellent;  to Chem 33,
    equivalent, to Chem 32 Professor;  an improvement.
3. I really like how this course is set up with the possibility to earn many 
    points other than test scores ... I really enjoyed this class 
    and can't think of anything to improve.
4. This is one of my favorite courses...I know I will use what I am
    learning and it is more interesting to me.
5. A
6. 3.147

52.  
1.  I would highly recommend he be more open for students to come to see
      him for help.  Several students I have talked with, including
      myself, don't feel he is receptive to helping students outside 
      of class.  Maybe he is pushed to do too much research instead of
      helping students.
2.  Good sense of humor, easy to understand, clearly stated expected 
      objectives and grading scale, gave alternative methods to
      testing for ability to learn points.
3.  Entirely too many different areas to keep track of-visualization, 
      chemistry in the news, work groups etc.  The amount of material
      in this class, in addition to having other classes, is enough.
      I never felt 100% prepared!
4.  A- to B+ overall-Enjoyable.
5.  A
6.  3.5

53.	
1.  The exams were very fair and covered exactly what was went over.
2.  This course was very good compared to all the other horror stories
	about Chem 210 courses.
3.  The course was fairly good to be Chem 210.
4.  Harder
5.  B
6.  2.9

54.
1.  Sometimes seems to be speaking to a few people directly, making it 
     hard to hear some key points being made.  Going through overhead 
     transparencies very quickly was sometimes hard to follow. Strong
     ability in helping everyone visualize things (especially
     stereochemistry).
2.  He is above average compared to others I have had.
3.  The internet help was a great asset.  The visualization 
     centers and other help tools were great.
4.
5.  A
6.  3.93

55.  
1.  Strong:  Tries to get students involved in lecture and reviews.
     Weak:  When students suggest an answer and its wrong, don't make them
     feel stupid.  Encourage them to find or think about the correct
     answer.
2.  Demands a lot of the students-sometimes a bit excessive, but
     does well overall;  tries to make the class fun and interesting.
3.  Getting on the computer to do all the on-line stuff was demanding and 
     time consuming.
4.  Very demanding and a lot of extra stuff to do.
5.  B
6.  3.98

56.
1.  Sometimes lectures were tough to follow.
2.  I have taken the class before.  The previous teacher, I got an F.
     Dr. Glaser's, I have a B.  I'd say Dr. Glaser did well.
3.  Weak:  didn't have enough time for tests.
     Strong:  Reviews helped a lot.
4.  Much better explained especially NMR.
5.  B
6.  2.8

57.
1.  Strong:  Good notes and practice material on web;  good sense
     of humor.  Weak:  Moves very quickly.
2.  Dr. Glaser did an excellent job in making sure we had plenty of notes
     and practice tests to work.  There is just so much info.
3.  Strong:  More interesting than Gen. Chem.
     Weak:  Almost too many topics covered, was very fast paced.
4.  This is a very difficult course.
5.  B
6.  3.75

58.
1.  Had a wide variety of materials and with other classes it was very 
     hard to study all materials to do well and I studied a lot.
2.  Very hard subject matter.
3.  Cover lots of material and is very difficult.
4.  This is like no other class in its difficulty.
5.  C
6.  2.45

59.
1.  The professor was very knowledgeable about the subject matter, but 
     lost patience in answering questions and many times could no
     explain answers in simple terms.
2.  He was about the same.
3.  Course was pretty good.
4.  More work & a little more difficult.
5.  B
6.  2.5

60.
1.  He needs to use a microphone, when he asks a question he doesn't always 
        clarify what the answer was.  He moves too quickly through the notes.
2.  His tests are a little too hard.  I mean, the average is in the 50's.  
        He doesn't do as many examples as far as applying the info.
3.  If this class had a discussion section it would help a lot.
4.  
5.  C
6.  3.26

61.
1.  He used the web to its full potential, however, sometimes I
        think we were responsible for too much material.
2.  He was at about the same level.
3.  Reviews seemed to help.  He could maybe offer more reviews.
4.  It's harder.
5.  B
6.  3.65

62.
1.  Writing on board is hard to read.  Sometimes speaks softly.  Overheads
	are helpful and examples are helpful when used.
2.  Testing is pretty fair.  Some tests are too long.  
        Use more examples please.
3.  More frequent small tests instead of large, longer tests.  See 
        difference with NMR quiz compared to exams.
4.  A lot of info. covered.
5.  B
6.  3.4

63.  
1.  I think he explained things well but a lot of times assumed students 
	knew questions he asked and therefore never answered them.  That
        was frustrating.
2.  I think this is a hard course and he taught it well.  I just think 
        he should never assume everyone knows something because it
        makes you feel dumb. Therefore, not ask.
3.  I think if there were a quiz every week or homework due at times it 
	would be keep everyone on the same pace and make group work more
	successful.
4.  It's very challenging like all courses.
5.  B
6.  3.4

64.  
1.  Having the notes already outlined makes it easier to follow.  Needs to 	
	offer a few more office hours.  Lecturer was quick in response
        to e-mails; needs to speak a little slower.
2.  Perhaps a little fast; repititious use of overheads with lights on dim
	doesn't work well to keep interest early in the morning.
3.  It promotes students studying together and working together.
4.  Very challenging;  difficult to keep interest.
5.  C
6.  3.6

65.
1.  Strong:  Always prepared for class.
     Weak:  Did not speak loud enough, not enough explanation, moved too
     quickly and ran over time too much.
2.  Better than my Chem33 lecturer but still needs lots of work in 
     explaining things.
3.  Strong:  No labs. 
     Weak:  Too much info;  needs more points for worksheets b/c no labs,
4.  I did not enjoy it as much but I tried to keep up.  I would say it 
     was average.
5.  C
6.  N/A

66.
1.  He had all his notes on the internet, which was very helpful but I don't
	feel like he explained them well.  He was very brief in many of his 
	explanations.  He also did not speak loud enough.
2.  Better than my Chem 33 instructor but not as clear as my Chem 32 
	 instructor.  More organized than my Bio 10 instructor.
3.  No labs-strong-also he had other points besides just test scores, 
        this I really liked.  The curve seems justifiable but I'm
        not sure I like it being set at a curve.
4.  It's in the middle.  I did not enjoy it as much as I could have.
5.  C 
6.  N/A

67.
1.  Weak:  No intro. or conclusion to subject matter of lecture, too much
	slamming of material and taught to one side of the class.
	Good:  Notes were often easy to follow.
2.  In comparison with other lecturers I have had, Dr. Glaser did not 
        present the material as clearly or in a organized matter as
        others.
3.  Too much material for a 3hr. course;  lab should be included.
4.  Fair, bording on poor.
5.  D
6.  4.0

68.
1.  Glaser is a well educated man who does not know how to teach.  
        He expects you, the student, to remember everything while at the
        same time, not teaching the material.  He feels that if he says it
        once, we should know it.
2.  This is one of the worst classes I have had since coming to college.
        With no curve or any decent type of teaching, the learning in this
        class was little to nothing.
3.  I believe, if taught with competence, this class could be a very
        beneficial class.
4.  Same as #2.
5.  E
6.  3.23

69.  
1.  Strong:  Very knowledgeable in subject.
	Weak:  Cannot teach his knowledge, no interest in student learning, 
	speaks too fast for his heavy accent, terrible teaching for intro.
	organic chemistry class, overall worst teacher I have had at MU.
	He never answered students questions.
2.  Had previous Chem 210 lecturer (Kaiser) that taught far better than
	Glaser.
3.  Teach instead of reading prewritten notes.
4.  The course was not taught, but read from notes.
5.  D
6.  2.3

70.  
1.  Ok
2.  Ok
3.  Ok
4.  Ok
5.  B
6.  3.0

71.
1.  He is difficult to hear and understand.  He needs to learn how to 
      speak more clearly.
2.  The material is boring and the lecturer needs to break things down
      better.  Some of the reviews are helpful.
3.  This course needs a discussion section.
4.  Needs a discussion section.  Too much info for lecture alone.
5.  D
6.  3.76

72.
1.  Weak:  Moves very quickly and covers too much info;  needs to slow 
     down and allow students to ask questions in lecture.  Tests are
     sometimes over obscure items such as common names.
     Strong:  Notes are very good as are on-line resources.
2.  Better than other chemistry courses I have taken.
3.  On-line notes and website very good.  Much info and very
     helpful when studying.
4.  More interesting but also more difficult.
5.  B
6.  3.5

73.
1.  I wasn't always clear on specific points/ideas he wanted us to know.  
      He was hard to follow and he jumped around.  He didn't talk loud
      enough.
2.  I have had many lectures that are more exciting, and keep my interest
      up.  I understood them better.
3.  I don't like the absolute grading scale, and more quizzes would help.
4.  
5.  D
6.  3.4

74.
1.  He was very hard to follow at times which caused me to have to work 
     10 times harder when I studied by myself.  He was to abrasive also.
2.  He has been, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the worst teacher I have had
     in a science course.
3.  The course is fine but needs to be taught in a wider time frame.  
     There's just too much to learn.
4.  It sucked
5.  D
6.  2.8

75.
1.  Weakness:  Unable to clarify the confusion.
	Suggestion:  Explain clearly
2.  He is good in terms of his notes that help me a lot in saving time 
        reading the textbook.
3.  No
4.  This is better than my previous chemistry course.
5.  A
6.  This is my first semester.

76.
1.  I found Prof. Glaser to be a very motivating professor but I was very
	disappointed.  He very much stressed keeping up with the book but 
	however, I found the book was easier to understand and comprehend,
	He was difficult to follow with his notes and examples.  So when I 
	thought I was understanding I was not.
2.  I feel that he talked at our level but for some reason I just was not
        able to stay with him.
3.  The notes could use better organization, I feel they are to jumpy and
	then when I try to go back over them, I feel complete fustration.
4.  He was just with the grading scale.
5.  C
6.  2.3

77.
1.  Dr. Glaser is one of the more organized professors I have had; with 
        the notes and everything on the web but, I think he tests over 
        some stuff that is just too detailed.  Knowing  values in a
        certain reaction opposed to knowing how every reaction works in 
        an example.
2.
3.
4.
5. B
6. 3.0

78.
1.  Overheads are good, but a lot of material is skipped.  Perhaps a 
        microphone would be helpful, very difficult to hear.  Write 
        bigger on the blackboard if its to be used.
2.  Very knowledgeable, but hard concepts need to be explained longer.
3.  Difficult subject manner which requires a lot of time for studying 
	The number of credits given for the level of difficulty plus hrs.
	of studying seems a bit unfair.
4.  My hardest course.  I feel that having no regular discussion group 
        or several TA's hurt my level of understanding.  I would have 
        been helpful and better to have something like that.
5.  C
6.  3.36

79.
1.  I liked having the outline of notes available.  The use of the web
        is excellent.  Form groups later in semester so you don't have 
        to worry about people dropping the class.
2.  Overall, good.  At times moved a little fast.  More organized than most 
	I've had.
3.  Course has a lot of material to cover and not enough time to cover it
	throughly.
4.   Moves fast.
5.  C
6.  2.4
80.
1.  I think that he depended on the online media way too much.  I would have
	liked to see more reviews.
2.
3.
4.	I learned a lot.  I think that we went through the material very fast;
	more than most courses.
5.  B
6.  N/A

81.  
1.  Always available to answer questions, lots of helpful sites
      available via the course page on the internet;  good e-mail
      communication.
2.  Very good.
3.  Good course.  Exams were perhaps unnecessarily difficult.  
      Visualization centers were a good idea;  group studying was iffy. 
4.  Ok
5.  B
6.  3.13

82.
1.  Very knowledgeable of material.
2.  Better use of time.
3.  Liked the [absolute] grading scale.
4.  More studying time than other courses.
5.  A
6.  3.0

83.
1.  
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

84.  
1.  He hightened the atmosphere at times but was also very serious.  It 
     did not seem as if he was available a lot though;  somewhat
     antagonistic at times.
2.  He is more straight forward in letting you know what to learn.
3.  It is challenging, but overall "do-able"
4.  Involves much more concentration
5.  B
6.  3.9

85.
1.  He is a good teacher and knows the material.
     The material that has to be covered is tough, not him.
2.  Knows the material and takes an interest in the class learning.
3.  Seemed fine for me.
4.  The best chemistry course I've taken so far.
5.  B
6.  3.0

86.  
1.  Strong feature is the extra work put into the class;  
        web page was extremely helpful.
2.  He was well organized in lecture.  He made the subject matter 
        clear and easy to understand.  The exams were not "impossible" 
        but very practical in this level of difficulty.
3.  
4.
5.  B
6.  3.0

87.
1.  Dr. Glaser shows a great knowledge of the subject matter.  However, 
        he expects us to be able to have a perfect working knowledge of 
        the subject matter.  So much so that he continually "bends us
        over" on examinations and quizzes.  He doesn't realize that this
        class isn't the only class that has tests which deserve equal
        attention.
2.  Dr. Glaser is helpful but he and every other lecturer of science 
        courses at this level expect too much.  Having to know 40+
        reactions for one test is too much.
3.  Less complication-no spectroscopy.
4.  Difficult
5.  C
6.  2.7

88.
1.  The overheads were nice, but it also made lectures boring.  Glaser is
      friendly and funny;  that helped.
2.  He's a good lecturer;  good humor.
3.  The course should be taught and formatted so that people want to take
      it instead of dreading it.  It is an extremely tough class-is that 
      entirely necessary?
4.  A lot of courses are more fun and exciting when they aren't so difficult.
5.  C
6.  3.7

89.  
1.  Needs some performance in lecturing to spark more interest and
	understanding, like props, visuals, experiments.  Better tests 
        that can test some of what I know (it seemed like I knew a lot 
        going into tests and then..)
2.  Better than McCormick but not quiet as good as Keller.
3.  Ok
4.  Didn't really have much interest in it, but that is mostly because I
	don't have much interest in Chem and not the fault of the course.
5.  C
6.  3.255

90.
1.  Very enthusiastic, obviously enjoys the subject a hell of a lot.  No 
      real weak features.
2.  Held a lot more review sessions.
3.  This class goes so fast that about 3 weeks into the semester I stopped
      trying.  The time investment needed to keep up is ridiculous.  I'll 
      be satisfied with a B- because this stuff in not even worth the
      trouble.
4.  Entirely too difficult.  I've taken a lot of high school classes, 
      but I dread this class.  Of course, that could be because I find
      chemistry mind numbingly dull.
5.  D
6.  3.8

91.  
1.  Was difficult to approach during test to ask questions.  Sometimes 
	hard to follow explanations.
2.  If I had an option of 2 instructors I would most likely not choose
	Dr. Glaser.
3.  Too much memorization.  Do not feel like I learn anything valuable 
	when memorization is the main part of the course.
4.  Less enjoyable than other chemistry courses.
5.  B
6.  3.25

92.
1.  Maybe just talk a little louder.
2.  He was a fine lecturer, but the subject matter was just not fun.
3.  Maybe having a small quiz each week to help students keep up with
	the material.
4.  Comparing chemistry to other courses-either you understand or you
	don't-it it just a lot harder than any other course I have taken.
5.  C
6.  3.2

93.
1.  The prepared notes were a huge help;  wish there had been a little
	more clarity on expected test content.
2.  
3.  The prepared notes were a huge help.
4.  Very difficult material
5.  C
6.  2.9

94.
1.  I thought his tests were very similar to the old exams.  The notes 
     on-line made it hard to concentrate in class because you had very
     little to write down.
2.  I think he did well, he had lots of examples.
3.  Lots of mechanisms to memorize;  why do we have to memorize them;
     groups were a bad idea.
4.  I thought it was tough but not impossible.
5.  B
6.  2.4

95.
1.  Had good notes to follow, but there was too much material to study 
     every test.
2.  He is very prepared and is very knowledgeable with chemistry.  
     He is more enthusiastic than other lecturers.
3.  It is a challenging course;  the book is good.
4.  It is much more difficult.
5.  
6.  3.45

96.  
1.  
2.  Lecturer is not very clear on what is expected on the exams at others
	I have had.
3.
4.
5.  C
6.  3.5

97.
1.  Strong:  Knows what he is talking about.
	Weak:  He is a little dry.
2.  He at least speaks English.
3.  Don't like the grading scale.
4.  A lot more difficult.
5.  B
6.  2.4

98.
1.  Strong:  Teaches and explains well;  very approachable.
	Weak:  Perhaps speak a little louder for people in the back.
2.  Much better teacher.  Actually able to learn, not just regurgitate
	material.
3.  Non-curved grading is a good idea.  Tests tend to be
        ridiculously hard in non-lab classes.
4.  Difficult, but necessary.
5.  B
6.  2.4

99.
1.  
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

100.  
1.  He has the ability to make a lecture to 200+ students seem personal.
	He doesn't baby down the material or let those who don't do the 
	reading and work take over lecture or review time.
2.  He is by far the best.  He challenges students as much as
        professor Keller did in Chem 33.
3.  It is a demanding course which requires much memorization.  A good
	exercise.  The group emphasis was a terrible idea.  It may work for 
	some, but it seemed like a waste of my time and energy.  The grading
	was fair and encouraged students to learn the material well rather
	than simply learning it as well  as their classmates.  The review 
	sessions were very well run-i.e. by the professor and not by lazy 
	students who had not put in the effort to prepare and instead
	expected to be given the answers.
4.  As intellectually stimulating and challenging as Prof. Keller's Chem 33.
	Much better than my other science courses.
5.  A
6.  4.0

101.
1.  The lecturer really seemed to know what he was talking about.  
	However, he sometimes used explanations that were hard to 
	understand to the average chemistry student.
2.  Well organized compared to the rest;  very knowledgeable.  However.
	sometimes made me feel dumb because I wasn't sure what he was
	talking about.
3.  Assign group projects to force us to get in our groups more.
4.  It was hard, but a fairly good course.
5.  B
6.  3.4

102.
1.  Strong:  Really seems to know his stuff;  I like the on-line preparation.
	Weak:  Writes on the board to small.
2.  He kept good contact with us and made sure we knew what was going 
	on.  Some professors aren't that careful about that.
3.  Strong:  I think I am well prepared for 212.
	Weak:  Seems like an awful lot of info. to learn in 15 weeks.
4.  Difficult, but aren't all chemistry classes?
5.  C
6.  3.2

103.  
1.  I like having notes on the overhead.  It allows you to concentrate on 
	what he is lecturing about instead of scribbling down notes.  I think
	he could have covered alcohol's more because they ended up being 
	pretty important for test #3 (explained a little better).
2.  
3.  By using a set grade scale.  I think it promotes working in groups,
	which helps out everybody.
4.  
5.  A-
6.  3.2

104.
1.  Strong:  Knowledge and interest in subject matter.
	Weak:  Needs to highlight more b/c too much info. was
	presented.
2.  Glaser was easier to follow and seemed to generally care about his
	students.  One of the better ones except for the work load!
3.  Strong:  Learned a lot/extra credit.
	Weak:  Too much to do for a 3 hrs. course-constant checking of
	websites, homework problems, too many notes.
4.  Don't write on the b/c it was hard to see;  reviews were helpful.  
	maybe have one review a week to go over the major stuff of that
	week-would be extremely helpful.
5.  B
6.  3.1

105.
1.  He knows a lot about the subject.  He draws diagrams on the board 
	that are helpful.  There is a lot of on-line material which he expects
	us to look at.
2.  I have genetics also.  Dr. Birchler keeps my attention most days
	because he is more amusing.  Dr. Glaser breaks down the more 
	confusing stuff with models and drawn diagrams.
3.  Ok, we're supposed to meet in groups.  This so didn't work for me.  I 
	think the class should have scheduled discussion times like genetics.
4.  The class is very hard.  It covers a lot of info.  This is the first course
	I've had where a lot of stuffs been on the web;  didn't like it much.
5.  C
6.  3.2

106.  
1.  Strong:  He knows chemistry
	Weak:  Some can't learn it like he did and as fast.
2.  Fast
3. 
4.  It's hard, but I have learned a lot.
5.  B
6.  2.3

107.
1.  Makes subject matter more interesting.
2.  He's better than the ones I've had before.  It's a hard subject to
	make interesting;  he does a good job of that.
3.  It's a good course.  Challenging, but good.
4.  
5.  A
6.  3.3

108.
1.  Seems to have exceptional knowledge of the subject matter in which
	he teaches.  Needs to make stronger similarities between lecture
	explanation and test style.
2.  
3.
4.
5.  A
6.  3.6

109.
1.  He is organized and obviously knows what he's talking about.  He is
	rude to most of his students with the women being the usual 
	exceptions.  I walked into his office hours seven times over the 
	course of the semester and only once did I even get him to agree to	
	help me;  even though I sit in the front everyday and have an A in the
	class.
2.  Dr. Glaser lacks graciousness and my other science professors have 
	usually displayed an eagerness that he lacks to teach me without a
	grumble or complaint.
3.  The course is well established and properly graded.
4.  
5.  B
6.  3.9

110. 
1.  Weak:  Presented the material in too many ways (lecture notes, 
	problems, online, crap). *With organic, students needs to learn
	the basics and then build on this with advanced material.  You threw
	the advanced stuff at us with the basics.
	*Also, the lecture notes did not go into the same order as the book
	and this made it hard to follow you.
	*Also, in the midterm evaluations, I asked for you not to write on the
	board, and you still did.  People cannot see in the back.
2.  I started taking this course in summer school with Dr. Sakar.  I 
	learned so much more from him because he took things at a slower
	pace and he made sure we knew what we were doing better we moved
	on.  He also made us only know that basics (which is a lot anyway) and
	this was easier to build higher chapters onto.
3.  The chemistry dept. should make this class smaller.
4.  The course is hard, but not impossible.
5.  C
6.  3.0

111.
1.  Most of the lectures were understandable, but there were a few in 
	which we moved a little too quickly.
2.  The lecturer explained more and seemed more interested in the 
	student's grades in this class than I have experienced with other
	professors.
3.  It was a challenge and I believed I learned a lot of pertainable
	knowledge.
4.  It was very challenging, but not nearly as impossible as Chem 33 was
	for me.
5.  A
6.  3.1

112.
1.  
2.
3.
4.
5.  C
6.  

113.
1.  Strong:  Notes easy to follow.
	Weak:  Notes, were however, too long.  Sometimes the pace of the 
	lectures was too fast as well.
2.  Sometimes went too fast in discussing difficult subject matter.
3.  Course material was difficult and maybe regular review sessions would 
	help clarify info.
4.  Challenging chemistry course compared with others I've taken.
5.  C
6.  3.3

114.
1.  He had a great understanding of what he taught but I didn't 
	understand some subjects, even when he tried to clarify them.
2.  He has been the best chemistry lecturer that I have had here at
	Mizzou.
3.  It was a good class and I felt better about my grade than my other
	Chem classes.
4.  This has been more interesting and more understandable than Chem 
	32 & 33.
5.  B
6.  3.0

115.  
1.  Focused too much on online activities, expected us to study like it was
	a 5 hr. class.  Good review sessions;  grading should be curved if/when
	necessary.  
2.  All my other lecturers were better and I learned more from them.
3.  I don't feel like I've learned anything and to me the class was just 
	memorization.
4.  Other courses I have taken were a lot better.
5.  D
6.  3.5

116. 
1.  Well organized and generally in a humorous mood.  Don't mother 
	students or scold late students during class.
2.  Better than average.  Made very difficult material somewhat easier to 
	understand.
3.  Very fair grading.  Provide extra credit opportunities which was a
	damn waste of time like surfing the web and looking for types in 
	notes.
4.  Very difficult.  Work much more for a lower grade.
5.  B
6.  3.9

117.
1.  Strong:  Knew everything about the subject;  likeable person.
	Weak:  Not so much that he went too fast but he often talked too
	fast, especially when trying to cram info. into the last 5 minutes.
2.  Not too much comparison.  This is the first class without a lab and
	without absolute grading.  As a teacher he was similar to the other.
3.  The speed it has to go, but then it didn't go so fast.  It wouldn't 
	prepare for 212.
4.  I like my other classes more.
5.  B
6.  2.9~3.0

118.
1.  Strong:  Was organized and knows subject matter.
	Weak:  Lectures were not interactive (no note taking by us-all notes
	were on the web), too many notes, lecturers did not hold my attention
	at all.
2.  Avg.
3.  Strong:  Balanced topic material.
	Weak:  Too much crammed in at the end-better time management.
4.	Avg.
5.  B
6.  3.4

119.
1.  Notes were available on the web so you could follow along in lecture.  
	However, sometimes hard to follow.
2.  Interested in subject manner, but needs to make class more 
	interesting and give better explanations.
3.  Too much material introduced at the end of the semester.
4.  Similar
5.  C
6.  3.1

120.
1.  I did not get much from lecture b/c the notes were already printed
	for us so I did not need to take notes.  I think it would be better if
	the notes online were missing some details so we would need to follow
	along and pay attention.
2.  He is very knowledgeable in the subject but it is almost to a point
	were he makes us feel stupid.  When we answer a question wrong
	he laughs at us, which discourages participation.  
3.  There is to much info. to be tested on, main ideas need to be focused
	on more than small details.
4.  The course was okay.  The subject matter simply did not interest me	
	that much.
5.  C
6.  2.9

121.
1.  He is enthusiastic and has exceptional knowledge.  Grading should be
	done different.  The German translations were inappropriate.  They
	had no relation to chemistry.
2.  They are all enthusiastic.  They seem to love chemistry.
3.  Too much info.
4.  They are all quiet challenging and they require a lot of study time.
5.  C
6.  2.9

122.
1.  Strong:  Exceptional knowledge of the subject matter and wants
	students to learn.  Review sessions were helpful and I also like the
	extra credit and points besides exams.
	Weak:  Goes extremely fast;  sometimes also focuses on details 
	instead of the larger picture.
2.  He reminds me of other chemistry professors who want everyone to
	love chemistry, when in reality they don't.
3.  It's good that there is no lab!  I personally find the material very 
	boring.
4.  Harder than 32 & 33.  I'm glad there is no lab.
5.  C
6.  3.7

123.
1.  Strong:  The notes are already prepared.
	Weak:  He doesn't explain and doesn't care.
2.  Not good
3.  The 2nd and 3rd exams were unreasonable and the material was not
	very clear.
4.  The worst I have taken.
5.  E
6.  3.0

124.	
1.  Strong:  The notes on the web helped for following along in his 
	lectures.
	Weak:  Sometimes he went to fast over important material in the
	lectures making understanding difficult.
2.  I think he was above average of my other science lecturers.
3.  It is a difficult course which covers a lot of difficult material.  The
	only thing which might help would be to somehow split the course.
4.  It was one of the more difficult classes I have taken.
5.  B
6.  3.34

125.  
1.  Big room with no microphone; like the web notes.
2.  Really enjoys his work, good attitude.
3.  Not enough time to cover his material.
4.  More overwhelming
5.  C
6.  3.0

126.
1.  He is understanding, yet he expects and demands too much.
2.  About the same as others overall.
3.  Less computer!  For those students who don't have computers, it is
	very difficult.  More reasonable time demands are necessary.
4.  Average
5.  B
6.  2.9

127.
1.  Strong:  The review sessions help.  The notes help and the extra
	credit helped.
	Weak:  Need a review guide for the test.  Too much stuff to know
	and memorize.
	2.  Professor Glaser is easy to follow and compared with others I have
	had, he is excellent.
	3.  The tests were a little hard, but like I said, review guides would
	of been helpful.
	4.  It was hard, but I think I have learned a lot.
	5.  B
	6.  2.9

128.
1.  Strong:  Explanations/lectures very clear, easy to understand.
2.  Easier to follow than other lecturers I have had in comparable
	science courses.
3.
4.
5.  A
6.  

129.
1.  Strong:  Knows material very well and presents it pretty good.  
	Weak:  Better outline for the test.  More examples of what could
	use a ~ will be on it/could use use less computer info.
2.  As of this semester, Dr. Glaser presents the info. the best.
3.  I wish not so much online info. was used b/c it is hard to find time
	to use them if you work and do not have a computer at home.
4.  This has probably been the most interesting.
5.  A
6.  2.9

130.
1.  He spends a great deal of time emphasizing points which are readily 
	understandable, but glosses over difficulties.
2.  He is a good lecturer, but his lectures may or may not pertain to his
	tests.
3.  Too much memorization, not enough application.
4.  Not as difficult as the Physics 175-176, but less enjoyable than 
	these classes.
5.  C
6.  3.8

131.	
1.  Strong:  Wants intimacy with students.
     Weak:  Has no intimacy with students.
2.  They are all from Berkeley.  It is a weird thing to notice, 
     but they all behave similarly to the understanding of their 
     field.  "I am the God of Science!"
3.  Class is too damn big.  There should be two sections for Organic 
     Chemistry.  Glaser would have intimacy with a smaller class.
4.  It's just another silly class if western style education.
5.  B
6.  4.0

132.
1.  Good enthusiasm, organization was pretty good.  Improvement on 
	understanding rel. of concepts to one another.
2.  Good
3.  Notes-written out-improves clarity and prevents missing info.  Relate
	Rxns to one another and chemistry overall.
4.  Tough
5.  B
6.  3.0

133.
1.  Strong:  Good organization of notes and reviews are helpful.
	Weak:  Pace of class was a little fast.
2.  Tests are a little easier to understand
3.  Strong:  Book is well organized;  3D molecules on web helpful.
4.  Easier than chemistry 33.  I like that the course deals with more of
	the structure of molecules.
5.  B
6.