The University of Missouri at Columbia, Chemistry 210, Organic Chemistry I, WS02

Teaching Evaluations - Overall Rating 3.3/4.0

Criteria of evaluation W02 F01 W01 F00 S99 W99 W97 F92 W92 F91
Org. and prep. of lectures and discussions 3.66 3.83 3.70 3.50 3.85 3.55 3.54 3.40 3.39 3.70
Instructor's enthusiasm for the subject matter 3.86 3.94 3.80 3.59 3.88 3.70 3.76 3.54 3.60 3.75
Helpfulness in answering questions and clarifying points 3.01 3.56 3.10 2.61 3.55 2.75 2.74 2.54 2.62 2.92
Ability to lecture in a manner which is easily followed 3.06 3.33 2.90 2.49 3.40 2.50 2.32 2.45 2.79 2.98
Ability to stimulate interest in the subject 3.12 3.56 3.00 2.53 3.47 2.82 2.66 2.67 2.90 2.91
Overall rating of the instructor 3.30 3.89 3.30 2.87 3.61 3.01 3.02 2.94 3.00 3.24
Your rating of how much you have learned 3.00 3.67 3.10 2.62 3.27 2.46 2.74 2.75 3.20 2.90
Overall rating of the course 3.07 3.78 3.00 2.61 3.38 -.-- 2.71 2.77 -.-- 2.88
Overall rating 3.26 3.69 3.28 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 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 for Chemistry 210
[Responses are complete and verbatim.  Emphasis by way of bold face ours]

1.
1.  Open to non-conventional methods like a take-home test.  
    Great use of media (outline, etc.)
2.  Much easier to follow than most other chem profs I've had (31,32,33)
3.  Great course, most fun I've had in chem yet.  I enjoyed the outline 
    aspect.
4.  Challenging course.
5.  A
6.  3.0

2.
1.  It is not clear that he gives an answer after someone answered when 
    he asked one question.  Could you show us the answers on the board?
2.  Simple and easy.
3. 
4. 
5.  A
6.  A

3.
1.  Assumes we know some things we don't during lecture.  Otherwise 
    lectures are clear & easy to understand explanations.
2.  Good for tough subject, knows the material well.
3.  The Carey book is not helpful.
4.  Difficult.
5.  A
6.  3.9

4.
1.  I felt at times, that we rushed through the lecture notes too fast.
2.  He is very knowledgable in organic, and he is very enthusiastic.
3.  The notes on the [web] are a strong point.  Need to use more 
    problem like the book, (Hard to see correlation from the homework 
    and the test.)
4.  It is very organized.
5.  B
6.  3.75

5.
1.  Sometimes moves too quickly & assumes we know info that most of us 
    don't.
2.  Probably one of the better chem profs. I've had, he makes an effort 
    to make sure you understand.
3.  I liked the review sessions before tests.  There's a lot of 
    information that seems unnecessary to memorize, book was of no 
    help at all.
4.  more difficult
5.  B
6.  3.4

6.
1.  Moves too quickly sometimes and needs more examples, but he is 
    funny which keeps lectures interesting.
2.  
3.  it is a bit too much information to digest.  the group project 
    was nice.
4.  couldn't have done it without my group.
5.  B
6.  3.2

7.
1.  His lectures & notes were hard to follow, I suggest that he not be 
    so rude to students when they come for help.
2.  He has more enthusiasm, but it seemed like he was teaching to a 
    higher level organic course instead of the first organic course.
3.  covers important info, but there is too much to try to cram into 
    one semester.
4.  More difficult than most other chem I have taken.
5.  C
6.  3.8

8.
1.  Dr. Glaser was always prepared for class.  It was neat to have a 
    professor who truly wanted to know his students and wanted them to 
    do well.  He's very enthusiastic.  I suggest working more problems 
    on the board as opposed to strictly using overheads.  Often, it is 
    easy to look at the notes & understand something but working problems 
    is more challenging.  I really liked the Chemistry in the News Part 
    of this course.  It really got me interested in  thinking about 
    organic chemistry issues in the news.
2.  Dr. Glaser shows a lot of enthusiasm compared to other lecturers.  
    He also creates opportunities (such as lunches, etc.) to meet his 
    students.
3.  Work problems on the board.
4.  It was an interesting course.  It required more work outside class.
5.  A
6.  3.25

9.
1.  Made a potentially very difficult subject much easier to understand.
2.  Dr. Glaser rates high over other professors.  His lectures were 
    interesting and informative.
3.  Adding a discussion section would help.
4.  This class was very good in comparison to others.
5.  A
6.  3.6

10.
1.  He should not reward those who suck up to him by going to lunches & 
    sitting up front.  Those who sit in back are just as eager to learn 
    and deserve to hear the lecture loudly and clearly.  Try to define 
    terms also.
2.
3. 
4.
5.  A-B
6.  3.0

11.
1.  Rushes through thing, w/o making sure concepts are understood.  Poor 
    speaking, hard to hear and concentrates on those in front row.
2.  Poor.
3.  No lab.  It was a waste of time.  Group project can be done in 
    regular schedule w/o using a pointless lab.
4.  N/C
5.  D
6.  3.2

12.
1.  Instead of making assumptions that all people know all about chem.
2.  Not as informative or explanatory as other prof's.  Absolute 
    grading corrupts absolutely.
3.  Needs to have a TA section thats better.
4.  Too tough mostly, very abstract, NOT HANDS ON!!  No lab.
5.  C
6.  3.2

13.
1.  Well organized and enthusiastic, he has made the class pretty easy 
    to pass.  Needs to explain mat. more in depth.
2.  This is my 2nd time taking this class.  He has really improved on 
    easy ways to pass the class.  About the same as other 200 level 
    science teachers.
3.  Easier to pass, there are more tests and quizzes:  you don't have 
    to wait 5-6 [weeks] to figure out that you don't get it.
4.  The mat. is harder than some other 200 level science courses I have 
    taken.
5.  B
6.  2.9

14.
1.  W:  accent interferes with my learning
    S:  Take home exams really do help.
2.  Not as good as previous.
3.  S:  getting through
    W:  craming material in; no clarification; teaches from 2 books.
4.  Not as good; very difficult to keep up in.
5.  D
6.  ? low

15.
1.  - Well organized and systematic approach of material.
    - Fast - Explain things a little bit slow.
2.  Good
3.  learned all basics of organic chemistry. 
    More material on organic hydrocarbons.
4.  Very informative and makes organic chemistry easier.
5.  A
6.  3.0

16.
1.  assumes too quickly that students grasp a concept.
2.  was actually prepared for class and knew what was going on 
    unlike Dr. [name deleted].
3.  n/a
4.  like most of my other lectures.
5.  A
6.  3.76

17.
1.  needs to emphasize important points more.
2.  He was easy to understand and his descriptions of material were 
    helpful.  It was nice that he followed his notes off the internet but 
    unfortunately when studying the notes didn't fit with anything else.
3.  The information was too disorganized.  It came from too many places 
    and often it didn't correlate with other sources.  Need to choose 
    one text and consistently follow it as well as making lecture notes corr-
4.  It was very disorganized, and espond to book information.  important 
    points weren't stressed.
5.  D
6.  3.67

18.
1.  Talk a little louder for us in the back.
2.  pretty good.  Only betterone is Dr. Len.
3.  Groups are not fair.  One member of my group did zero work and got 
    an A+ grade for our project.  Make groups after example of tests 
    determined by their grades (ie, put the poor students together and the 
    good students w/ the good students.
4.  good, but I have no interest in chemistry.
5.  B
6.  3.75

19.
1.  Notes very hard to follow.
2.  Very knowledgable.
3.  Course was tough and hard to understand.
4.  A little tougher.
5.  B
6.  3.47

20.
1.  He goes really fast through the material in class.
2.  He is about the same.
3.  I liked the group projects, they really helped.
4.  It was pretty hard.
5.  B
6.  3.3

21.
1.  Very well organized notes for lecture that are easy to follow but if 
    the required book is not wade the notes should not be based on that 
    book.
2.  Very good lecturer explains things the best out of all the 
    chemistry professors I have had.  Tests are also very fair.
3.  Collaborative learning was not helpful and a waste of time.  If that 
    could be used to do problems as well as use computers it could be more 
    beneficial.
4.  Liked the course better than any others.
5.  A
6.  3.0

22.
1.  Fantastic notes, usage of pictures, explanations, use of web was 
    very good and helpful; he always made reference to "real-life" 
    applications of organic chem.
    Weak:  Sometimes hard to understand his lectures when he gets really 
    excited.
2.  He is a lot more understanding of student's needs/concerns and works 
    with them to make certain they understand the material.
3.  #1: Make organic chem not so difficult and impossible.  But since 
    that's not an option, the usage of overheads and the web requirements 
    were very good; alot of available points to get better grade; Weak:  
    Sometimes boring material.
4.  Very difficult course as a whole, but his teaching helped out 
    alot.
5.  A
6.  3.0

23.
1.  Great enthusiasm!  No complaints!
2.  Best chem lecturer I have ever had.
3.  Felt testing was very fair...discussion sections could be planned
    more efficiently.
4.  Very Good.
5.  A
6.  3.5

24.
1.  Strong - asking class ?'s
    Weak - When writing on dry erase board write larger and use black 
    marker!
2.  Better than some.
3. 
4.
5.  A
6.  


25.
1.  Strong - Notes well organized
    Weak - Moved too fast @ end of semester.
2.  More enthusiastic, covered a lot more material.
3.  Strong - Notes, review sessions were helpful.
    Weak - Notes followed old text, maybe recommend that that text should 
    be used.
4.  Well organized, tests were good b/c they covered material we 
    learned.
5.  B
6.  3.97

26.
1.  Very enthusiastic.
2.  Maintains a good level of interest.
3.  Too much memorization and not enough application.
4.  
5.  B
6.  2.3

27.
1.  He knows what he's talking about but he has difficulty relaying it
    to the class in a way we can all follow.
2.  He covered a lot more material in a very small amount of time but he 
    is about the same as other lecturers I've had.
3.  It covers a lot of information/maybe have more extra outside help.
4.  It is difficult.
5.  
6.  3.2

28.
1.  V. organized, but sometimes went way to fast covering content in lecture.
2.  He had more enthusiasm than most other lecturers.
3.  I like the test every other week, and I thought our chemistry in 
    the news was a great way to do some hands on learning and researching.  
    But we shouldn't be required to form a group and have an extra 
    discussion time once a week, it wasn't helpful.
4.  No comment.
5.  B
6.  3.4

29.
1.  Strong:  Very knowledgable about subjects.
    Weak:  Only rarely did he rush to squeeze info in, not enough time 
    to fully learn.
2.  He is very good.
3.  It was a good course, it expanded on the high school chemistry I took.
4.  It is very good.
5.  A
6.  2.5

30.
1.  Always used crappy markers while lecturing.
2.  Better than most - more dedicated, enthusiastic and better 
    lecturer.
3.  Less stuff online.
4.  
5.  B
6.  3.1

31.
1.  He obviously knows his stuff, but could definetly stand to show 
    more interest in students.
2.  better.
3.
4.
5.  B
6.  3.7

32.
1.  Sometimes we are not able to see what he is writing on the overhead 
    and we then become lost.
2.  He is very enthusiastic.
3.  I like all the tests and quizzes.  It keeps you up on the 
    material.
4.  It's hard.
5.  B
6.  3.5

33.
1.  The lecturer knows the material quite well but sometimes assumes the 
    students are able to know and learn material just as quickly.  He 
    rushes through the material quickly sometimes and students don't 
    understand it.
2.  Fine.
3.
4.  This course takes a lot of your time.  It should be considered 
    as a 4 credit hour course.
5.  B
6.  4.0

34.
1.  Dr. Glaser was extremely knowledgeable but sometimes seemed like he 
    forgot that his students had no background in organic chemistry.
2.  He was often in a rush and humed through some material to stay on 
    schedule even though people didn't understand it.
3.  Too many tests.
4.  Takes up a lot of extra time outside of class, should be worth more 
    than 3 credit hours.
5.  B
6.  3.8

35.
1.  Strong:  Knows subject material well, good use of notes and 
    overheads.
    Improvement:  There should be only one text that students should be 
    able to use and follow instead of 2 "suggested" ones that material is 
    taken from both.
2.  Did not make sure material was understood before jumping ahead to 
    next subject.
3.  Test were reasonable, however sometimes full expectations of the 
    problem weren't explained clearly.
4.  Course material much more difficult - no clear textbook to help 
    study.
5.  B
6.  3.8

36.
1.  Extremely knowledgeable and good use of descriptions and examples.  
    Sometimes hard to follow because assume we know what you're talking 
    about.
2.  Works hard to make the student understand.
3.  Good organization, eliminate the mandatory group or use it as 
    mandatory review session.
4.  Good course, a lot more work than others.
5.  B
6.  3.1

37.
1.  He was good at going along in a structured manner where the students 
    could follow along on their notes.
2.  Dr. Glaser seemed to put a lot of time into preparation for each 
    class.  More than most science teachers.
3.  It was very difficult, but I think this class is supposed to be difficult.
4.  It wasn't bad.
5.  B
6.  3.75

38. 
1.  He comes prepared and knows the basic subject he wants us to walk 
    away knowing after lecture each and does well to pound those ideas 
    home.
2.  He is more in depth and responsive to the students than any of my 
    previous chemistry teachers.
3.  The course consists of difficult material.  I don't know that there 
    is any easy way of presenting it.
4.  Chem 210 is difficult and requires much more effort on my part to 
    attain an A than previous chemistry classes.
5.  B
6.  3.5

39.
1.  His visual aids helped a lot and it was nice to have the notes 
    printed out.  He is well organized.  
    It would be nice if he stressed certain problems that went along with 
    the lecture, rather than just on the internet.
2.  He did an excellent job, nice guy.
3.  Good course.
4.
5.  A
6.  3.65

40.
1.  Sometimes he assumes we know more that what we actually do, other than 
    that he's fine.
2.  Better than most.
3.  A lot of material is covered in a short time, maybe cut on minute 
    details we don't need.
4.  I've learned more in this class than in other chemistry 
    classes.
5.  A
6.  3.8

41.
1.  Sometimes he doesn't put enough emphasis on stuff that is very important.  
    He knows the material very well.
2.  He is absolutely the best chemistry teacher I have had yet.
3.  Very interesting matter.   A lot of info for one semester though.
4.  It is one of my favorite science courses.
5.  B
6.  3.4

42.
1.  Maybe less points quiz will be better, 50 points for quiz is a little 
    too much.  It's good that we could print out notes from internet, but 
    it seems the practices and exercises online are not helpful when it's 
    come to the test time.
2.  
3.  Should have review section every week based on the book 
    material.
4.
5.  B
6.  3.4

43.
1.  I had ------ last semester and I really enjoy your teaching methods 
    better. What was expected of us was straight forward.  I also enjoyed 
    having notes to print off.
2.  Like I said before w/ ------, ------'s methods were scattered, and 
    Dr. Glasers were much more understandable.
3.  The course is fine.
4.
5.  B
6.

44.
1.  Well organized.  Gave more tests so we could keep up w/ material 
    easier.  Sometimes material was rushed through.
2.  He was good.  Needs to make more time to help students.  Research was 
    very important to him.
3.  Strong  Lots of exams.   Weak  Rushed through some material.
4.  
5.  B
6.  3.1

45.
1.  Loud enough, notes are preprinted.   Goes fast, doesn't expand on 
    important points.
2.  He is better than Dr. ----- in Chem 33.  Glaser has enthusiasm.
3.  Test need to be related to notes.  CL sections are helpful.
4.  I liked Chem 33 better.
5.  B
6.  3.25

46.
1.  Professor is very approachable.  Sometimes when he lectures he 
    goes too fast and stands in front of the projector so we can't 
    see.
2.  Most enthusiastic chem professor I've had at this university.
3.  Course covered so much material, we couldn't get done w/ the syllabus.
4.  10 times better than chem 32 & 33.
5.  B
6.  3.3

47.
1.  Strong:  Knowledgeable, articulate, rational, fair.
2.  Dr. Glaser is a good lecturer as he is very enthusiastic and colorful.
3.  The course was good; especially the website and everything 
    associated with it.
4.  Some courses do not make use of the web, chem 210 did.
5.  A
6.  3.6

48.
1.  - Extremely enthusiastic.
    - Has put a lot of hard work into the notes and course content.
2.  Probably the best chemistry lecturer I've had - extremely helpful 
    notes and web tools.
3.  Test questions a little unfair - we had a question over a structure 
    on the last page of the notes and he didn't ever talk about it.
4.  Good course.
5.  B
6.  2.5

49.
1.  The lecture is sometimes too fast, and important points are not 
    made clear, and hard to understand immediately.
2.  Dr. Glaser has great enthusiasm and makes organic chemistry fun.
3.  
4.  It requires much more time and commitment.
5.  A
6.  4

50.
1.  Goes over everything; sometimes a little more explanation might help.
2.  Much more interesting than other science teachers.
3.  I don't like to be subjected to review my peers.  I think a 
    professional is the one who should handle my grading.
4.  More challenging and rewarding.
5.  A
6.  3.0

51.
1.  Not exactly specific about what is expected.  Highly enthusiastic.
2.  Very good - easy to follow in lecture.
3.  There is a lot! of information to digest in one semester.  Felt 
    like I did a lot of cramming rather than retaining all the info.
4.  Overall, it was okay; learned a lot.
5.  A
6.  3.8

52.
1.  Dr. Glaser is very enthusiastic about chemistry and the nicest 
    chemistry teacher this campus - he is also straight forward w/ his 
    expectations of the class!
2.  This is the best lecturer I have ever had compared to science, but 
    not overall.
3.  Strong:  Enthusiasm of Dr. Glaser
    Weak:  Not learning a lot in class.
    Improvements:  Additional Comment:  I think that Dr. Glaser should not 
    have made us attend an extra section w/o having a credit hour added 
    by the dept.
4.  Better than most chemistry classes I have taken!
5.  A
6.  3.03

53.
1.  Should try to teach more of the mechanics as oppose to just 
    saying memorize all the compounds.  Some of the things taught is  
    what people are now learning in 212.  This is an intro course 
    remember that!
2.  Other lecturers focus on learning the material rather than 
    memorizing every little thing so that we will remember it later on.  
    Most other lecturers put a curve on class.
3.  The collaborative learning groups were a complete waste of time 
    and it shouldn't be made an additional day of class unless stated in 
    the course guide and given another hour of credit!
4.  Other courses stick to class days listed in course guide.
5.  C
6.  3.6

54.
1.  I liked how he prepared notes for us to print.  Sometimes forgets to 
    move the overhead so we can see it.
2.  He tried a little more to make the classes interesting.
3.  The collaborative learning sessions were awful/ or find a 
    different TA.
4.  More difficult than 32, 33, but interesting.
5.  B
6.  3.9

55.
1.  Need review sessions.
2.  Glasner alway have a good outline of what is going to be on the 
    test which most teachers don't.
3.  Lab is useless, don't really learn anything from I/C centers, but 
    RSD may be helpful for the class.
5.  B
6.  2.3

56.
1.  I was not interested in hearing Dr. Glaser's various political 
    views.  If I wanted to hear opinions such as the ones he spouted 
    out I would have taken woman's studies.
2.  Better then some, not as good as others.
3.  Having a 2 texts was a bit annoying, and expensive.  The text that 
    the notes followed was only available in limited quantities.  The comp 
    lab time could have been better spent as an RSD section that would 
    clarify certain points made in lecture.
4.  See answer 2.
5.  C
6.  3.7

57.
1.  Weak:  Doesn't make sure that everyone understands all of the
    information presented before moving on to new information.
    Strong:  Instructor is very knowledgeable in the field.
2.  Comparable, exam better than some.
3.  
4.  A lot more difficult, but more interesting as well.
5.  B
6.  3.92

58.
1.  Strong:  Teaching style, made us work our butts off for the grade 
    we pull.
    Weak:  Sloppy writing and bad markers are hard to follow.
2.  Fabulous.
3.  Strong:  Challenged us.
    Weak:  Have a choice between the peer review or your grade for the 
    projects.
4.  !
5.  A
6.  3.0

59.
1.  Dr. Glaser was great and he really knows his chemistry.
2.  He is the best chem teacher I have had.
3.  The weakest feature was the computer lab group.  They were not very 
    helpful.
4.  It is a good class to take.
5.  B
6.  3.25

60.
1.  Went too FAST!  5 chapters in the last 2 weeks.
2.  Best Chemistry Professor.  But way too FAST!!
3.  Did not cover enough material helpful for chem 212 (heard from a 
    present 212 student.)
4.  
5.  C
6.  3.7

61.
1.  I had trouble meeting with him.  Sometimes he wasn't in his office 
    when he said he would be and when he was, he had no time to answer 
    questions.  The lunch times were no good for my schedule 
    unfortunately.
2.  He is exceptional in lecture and with his use of the web.
3.  I suggest starting the weekly reviews at the beginning of the 
    semester. Otherwise the class is ideal.
4.  Expectations of my performance were more clear than in other 
    classes.
5.  A
6.  3.0

62.
1.  The notes he had for us were helpful, it always helped me better 
    when he used a model set instead of paper.  He makes us recall and 
    participate in class - that's good but I'm intimidated to speak 
    in a big room.
2.  It's a better subject matter and I think sometimes he forgets this 
    is the first time we have seen organic.
3.  The book problems don't help w/ his style of testing.
4.  Better, more interesting, harder.
5.  B
6.  3.3

63.
1.  The explanations in class and the class notes often explained 
    things differently that the book - sometimes better - but when I 
    needed clarification it was sometimes tricky to find the 
    corresponding section in the book.
2.  He is a great lecturer.
3.  I think I did in #1 - more lecture - lecture note- textbook agreement.
4.  Challenging, comprehensive - a good education.
5.  A
6.  3.2

64.
1.  Very weak = He can't pick out the important aspects of the course 
    to teach.  His notes are not organized enough.  There is way too much 
    information to assimilate and MEMORIZATION IS NOT LEARNING!
2.  I have had another Organic Chemistry class that was much more 
    interesting than this.  The teacher was organized.  I did not learn as 
    much because for CH210 I had to teach myself using the book.  Glaser's 
    notes are much harder to follow and his exams do not cover the 
    important material.
3.  The course should not have 2 books, only 1.  Many college students 
    cannot afford more than 1.  The course should not have a collaborative 
    section.  CH 210 is a 3 hour course, not a 4 hour course, besides it 
    was entirely useless.  Do not use so many things on the net, and get 
    rid of the group project.
4.  This is very difficult because of the information he wants us to 
    assimilate.  It is way too much!
5.  E
6.  2.9

65.
1.  Dr. Glaser is enthusiastic and a good motivator.  He does a great 
    job of pushing us to answer his questions in class.
2.  Excellent.  Most other chemistry professors I've had are dry and 
    boring.  It's good to have a science professor that has people 
    skills.
3.  Less memorization!  I don't really believe I'll remember the 
    reactions I've had to memorize 10 years from now, but I hope I retain 
    the concepts.  Also, the book didn't really match the lecture.
4.  Good.
5.  A
6.  3.9

66.
1.  The lectures are good.  The stupid side - work sucks (group project 
    - very time consuming and an inefficient way to learn.) - suggestion - 
    stick to the basic material - (real world applications should be 
    tested but only those that are mentioned in class) - The use of the 
    internet was a well-directed but very inefficient way to learn. 
    [Visiting 20 web pages = 10 min of the instructors explanation]
2.  He has an excellent grasp of the material.
3.  Strong point - instructor
    Weak point - the extraneous side-work
4.  It is good, but requires much more time than a typical 3-hour class 
    (due to the side work)
6.  4.0

67.
1.  I liked the final project.  Reading notes does not help.  I can 
    do that myself.  Needs more examples and explanations.
2.  - Doesn't work any problems.  
    - Students from previous 210 classes tried to help tutor me, but 
    couldn't because they couldn't understand what we were learning.
3.  - Course material sometimes seemed out of order.  My uncle also works 
    as a chemist for the DNR and said my notes were confusing and we were 
    studying some irrelevant stuff when we could be studying more 
    important items.
4.  I really didn't understand anything that was going on.
5.  C
6.  3.56

68.
1.  I felt he went through the information way too fast, we did five 
    chapters, which I've been told are very important for org chem 212, in 
    two weeks.  I felt his examples lacked and he does not truly care 
    if we learn as long as he looks good.
2.  I felt that compared to my former chemistry teachers, he was the 
    worst.  I feel I could have done just as well in this class 
    without coming to lectures because I could have used the notes and 
    my book and have gotten more information than what he gave us.
3.  I think it would have been better if we had been told to get the 
    same book that we were taught out of.  Also I feel that if we are 
    expected to go to class an extra hour every week, then we should get 
    credit or at least be told before the first day of class so we can 
    adjust our schedule accordingly.
4.  I feel the information is quite interesting and with a different 
    I think I would have really enjoyed the class and probably better 
    understood things instead of just memorizing them.
5.  C
6.  3.4

69.
1.  Strong - Dr. Glaser's enthusiasm for the material and his 
    organized lecture structure/format.
    Weak - Lack of office hour availability.
2.  When compared to other upper level (200+) science prof.'s I have 
    had Dr. Glaser fits right in to combining unparalleled knowledge w/ 
    unbridled enthusiasm.
3.  There is so much to learn!!  Chem 210 and 212 should be split into 
    three classes (like chem 31,32, 33) to ease the huge load.
4.  This course is by far the most difficult I have ever taken.
5.  C
6.  3.017

70.
1.  sometimes goes way to fast - probably because there is so much 
    information.
2.  Pretty good for chem department but not as good as my chem 32 
    teacher.
3.  Too much info in too little time.
4.
5.  A
6.  3.4

71.
1.  Dr. Glaser is very enthused and has a great amount of knowledge.
2.  He is probably one of my best teachers out of all of my science 
    classes.
3.  The course was weak in that 2 different textbooks were used and suggested.
4.  It has been my favorite chemistry class thus far.
5.  B
6.  3.3

72.
1.  He should choose one primary text (i.e. Wade or Carey) and 
    adjust his lecture to compliment it.
2.  This is my second semester of Chem 210 and while I shall receive a 
    better grade, I think it would have been very hard to understand, had 
    I not taken this class before.
3.  Again, the Chem department should agree upon one organic chemistry 
    text instead of working from two.
4. 
5.  C
6.  

73.
1.  He know his subject matter extremely well.  His strategy of having 
    us print of the notes prior to lecture, I think, causes some 
    complacency, i.e. we should write our own notes.
2.  Similar in all ways to other science lecturers, no real difference.
3.  The required text wasn't used at all, which was amazing.
4.
5.  B
6.  4.0

74.
1.  Well organized, speaks loudly and clearly and emphasizes important 
    points by repitition.  Very available to help students.
2.  Much more willing to help us out than other lecturers I've had.
3.  Having the notes and old exams available on the web was extremely 
    helpful.  Collaboration groups were a good idea and had potential to 
    be much more helpful, but the weekly sessions really didn't do much. 
    There really wasn't any group interaction until the very last week of 
    the semester.  Take home exams were too long or too difficult, 
    it's better to spend half that time studying for an in-class exam.
4.  Pretty good compared to all the other chemistry I've taken.  
    Explanations were clear, notes were well organized (although, since 
    most of us use Carey, it would have been nice to chapter # to 
    correspond w/ not #) Instructor was enthusiastic and helpful, always 
    very available. 
5.  A
6.  3.2

75.
1.  Dr. Glaser is extremely enthusiastic and unbelieveably intelligent 
    in the area of organic chemistry.  I liked the way Dr. Glaser 
    utilizes the material to spark student interest in Organic 
    Chemistry.  
2.  Dr. Glaser is the best by far.
3.  This course has a lot of information. The new book the dept. has 
    chosen does not seem as good as the Wade text.
4.  This course was very interesting compared to others.
5.  A
6.  2.42

76.
1.  Excellent organization of material and we were explicitly made aware 
    of instructor expectations.
2.  The best I've ever in comparison to other science courses.  I had 
    great confidence in the instructor's knowledge of material.
3.  The subject material is very broad and demanding but I don't think a 
    lot can be done about that.
4.  I feel I've learned the most out of this chemistry course than any 
    before.
5.  A
6.  4.0

77.  
1.  Dr. Glaser was an excellent teacher, he pushed students to do well 
    and respected students as well.  His lectures were great, he was good 
    at explaining things in a way that was understandable.  He is just a 
    big ole stud-muffin.
2.  Dr. Glaser surpasses all the teachers I have had so far.
3.  It's a tough course, but I liked the idea of collaboration that we used.
4.  It was a damn hard class.
5.  A
6.  3.5

78.
1.  Both entertaining, interesting and challenging.  I really 
    enjoyed the test format.  Spread things out a bit.  Color parts on the 
    overheads didn't show up.  More reviews, those were great.
2.  Amazing.  All science classes should be like this.  Other chem 
    profs are jackasses.
3.  Notes and book didn't match.  A little confusing sometimes.
4.  Wonderful. Probably my favorite so far.
5.  A
6.  3.29

79.
1.  I like Dr. Glaser's interpretation of organic chem.  He just makes 
    or. much easier to be understood.
2.  He reminds me of one of my favorite physics professor.
3.  May 1/2 hr of lab time instead of 1 hr. 
4.  Time-consuming but interesting.
5.  A
6.  A

80.
1.  He has a good knowledge of subject but the instructor much longer 
    to thoroughly explain material.
2.  1st class in science at this level.
3.  The lecture was not long enough to cover the large amount of 
    material thoroughly, perhaps a weekly review session would be 
    appropriate.
5.  B
6.  3.66

81.
1.  Enthusiasm for the subject is his strongest feature.  However, he 
    often forgets that this is only about 1/5 of our class load (it's 
    not a 5 hour class!)
2.  Tries more to find the "real life" applications relative to other 
    chem instructors.
3.  The worst part of this course was the computer lab.  I feel it did
    not supplement the lecture.  A weekly review w/ the prof. throughout 
    the semester would be much more helpful in understanding the subject 
    matter.
4.  I felt that I put more into this course than I learned relative to 
    other classes.
5.  B
6.  3.69

82.
1.  Strong - enthusiastic and interesting to listen to.  Weak - Too 
    much information!  This is a 3 hour class and yet more time has been 
    spent on this than a 5 hour class.
2.  He is definitely better to listen to and his notes are great but 
    too much time is spent on small things instead of what we should know 
    but that is how chemistry courses always go.
3.  Strong - study sessions.  Weak - didn't have sessions until last 
    part of semester and discussion is a waste of time.
4.  I've had better.
5.  C
6.  2.8

83.
1.  He's extremely intimidating and demanding to the point where many 
    students will not approach him with questions.  He's extremely 
    knowledgeable about the material, but I think he's the only person who 
    truly follows and understands his lectures.
2.  He's far more arrogant than any professor I've had before, and 
    he's more unapproachable than most.  His lectures are average.  On the 
    other hand, his concern for whether his students learn is greater than 
    most professors I've had.
3.  The collaborative learning sessions were frequently a big waste 
    of time.  They could've been extremely helpful if they had been 
    structured better.
4.  This course is very hard, but better and more interesting than 
    chem 33, but I really didn't like it much (but that could be because 
    I really don't like chemistry much).
5.  B
6.  3.8

84.
1.  Strong:  Cares about what students learn.
    Weak:  Sometimes goes to fast.
2.  Enthusiastic.
3.  Strong:  Covers a lot of organic chemistry.  
    Weak:  Computer Lab sessions were unnecessary.
4.  Challenging.
5.  B
6.  4.0

85.
1.  Strong: Knows the material.  Weak: Making it clear what we need 
    to know and get out of lecture.  Strong: was very kind too :)
2.  He understands where the student is coming from, but also needs 
    to realize, this is our first organic chem class.
3.  Strong - It utilizes chemistry/shows chem in different fashion. 
    Weak - What is expected, what should we take w/ us when we leave, 
    and be able to continue in 212.
4.  Hard course/challenging, diff teaching style and information.
5.  B
6.  2.9

86.
1.  
2.
3.  Have the instructor go by a textbook so we can have more than one 
    explanation.  The discussion group ended up being mandatory if you
    wanted to do the final project but we did not receive any credit that 
    was totally unfair.
4.  This course is definatly the hardest I have taken so far.
5.  B
6.  2.0

87.
1.  Explanations are often complicated.  I have never had this much 
    trouble following an instructor.  I did like the idea of a final 
    project.
2.  I have had other lecturers who were much more patient and helpful, 
    and explained things on a student level.  People from chem 210 last 
    year who had a different professor had no idea what was going on 
    in my notes.  They said we were way behind as well.
3.  It was very hard.  An RSD was helpful, but it would be more helpful 
    without the computers.
4.  I had no idea what was going on.  I feel I am not prepared for 
    Chem 212.
5.  D
6.  3.3

88.
1.  Prepared notes for this class helped alot.
2.  Very enthusiastic and interested in subject.
3.  Difficult course makes you apply yourself.  Computer sessions did 
    not seem to provide enough interest.  A discussion group would work 
    better.
4.  Good but difficult course.
5.  B
6.  2.7

89.
1.  The only weak point is that in Ellis library half the class 
    couldn't see what he was writing most of the time.
2.  
3.  We didn't know what material to study sometimes.  We had two books 
    that he pulled info from on the test.  Need better specification of 
    what to read.
4.  Above average.
5.  B
6.  

90.
1.  Taken more time to go over subjects you just want us to memorize.
2.  The lecturer was interesting and he seemed interested in the subject 
    matter.
3.  Since Carey is the departmental standard now, the lecture note 
    should have been modeled after it.
4.  I learned more in this class than other chemistry courses I've 
    taken but I may not receive an A like the other ones.
5.  A
6.  3.6

91.  
1.  Could explain further.  It is extremely hard at times to see all 
    of the information on the overhead.  Thus, understanding concepts can 
    be challenging @ times.
2.  He is extremely enthusiastic, however when one finds problems w/ 
    his/her test, he is very unnegotiable.
3.  This is a difficult topic. More direction in concepts to focus on 
    would be useful.
4.  Level of difficulty and necessary time is extremely higher.  
    (obviously)
5.  B
6.  3.71

92.
1.  Strong:  Enthusiasm.  Ability to peak my interest in the subject.  
    One of my best teachers so far.  Weak:  Notes need to follow book.  
    (wish I bought Wade).  Slow down a tad. (probably not his fault)
2.  One of my best science teachers in 3 years.
3.  Need more time in certain areas.
4.  Kinda hard.  Getting a B.
5.  B :)
6.  3.5

93.
1.  He was always prepared and it was obvious he knew the material very 
    well.
2.  I thought he was one of the better science professors that I have 
    had he explain a little better.
3.  The course was fine.
4.
5.  B
6.  3.0

94.
1.  Good instructor.
2.  More interesting but very busy.
3.  Time was focused efficiently.
4.  More interest was stimulated in this course.
5.  A
6.  3.63

95.
1.  Strong - Lecture notes on web good, enthusiasm good, web use very 
    helpful.  Weak - Don't like collaborative learning.
2.  Much better for chem.
3.  Strong - Web use and link and emphasis on it very helpful.  
    Weak - Collaborative learning useless just waste time.
4.  Much better for chem.
5.  A
6.  5.65

96.
1.  He goes to fast and doesn't make sure that we understand.  Tries 
    to cover so much can't pick out most important parts.  We can't 
    learn everything he knows in 16 wks.
2.  Poorer - tries to cover too much.
3.
4.
5.  C
6.  3.3

97.
1.  
2.
3.  Lab time could have been better spent working on course material 
    rather than learning how to make webpages.
4.
5.
6.

98.
1.  Strong - lectures over important info.  Weak - Doesn't leave enough 
    time between subjects to absorb anything.
2.  I've had much better, others go through important info, but he goes 
    through everything and asks obscure questions.
3.  Do not make us sign up for a recitation that isn't mentioned in the 
    course book.  4 hous of work = 4 credit hours, NOT 3.
4.  This is poorly put together compared to genetics, physics, & biology.
5.  C
6.  3.74

99.  
1.  He's very enthusiastic and has a great personality.  He moves 
    kind of fast and isn't as understanding as he could be if you're not 
    right there understanding it with him.
2.  He's better than some, but very hard.
3.  I liked the online part of the course, but it was good to a point.  
    I think if took time away from learning the basics we need to study.
4.  A lot more content and a lot  more computer stuff.  They expected a 
    lot more out of us in this class.
5.  B
6.  3.8

100.
1.  He is very enthusiastic about the material he is teaching.  His 
    tests have some questions on stuff that we did not go over much and 
    that were not in the notes.
2.  He is a better lecturer than the last one I had.
3.  I think the extra computer class is too much.
4.  I learned more in this class than in any other of my classes.
5.  A
6.  3.5

100.
1.  He was very enthusiastic, and really seemed to care that we did well.  
    Some of the tests covered very minor details and did not accurately 
    reflect my knowledge of the subject matter.
2.  This lecturer was much more enthusiastic and cared more about 
    the students than any other lecturer I've had.
3.  The course was designed to cover too much information.  In 
    order to pick up details the way we were required to it should've 
    covered less material.
4.  I did not like the fact that we were required to participate in a 
    one hour discussion, and not informed of this until the first day of 
    class.  In other courses, I knew when I signed up.
5.  C
6.  3.769

101.
1.  He doesn't take into consideration whether the students are 
    actually comprehending the info, he just moves on.
2.  At this level he is sub-par.
3.  Strong - Computer images.  Weak - The speed in which the info has 
    to be taught to cover everything.
4.  It's worse.
5.  C
6.  2.5 

102.
1.  He is very enthusiastic about the material he is teaching.  His
    tests have some questions on stuff that we did not go over much and
    that were not in the notes.
2.  He is a better lecturer than the last one I had.
3.  I think the extra computer class is too much.
4.  I learned more in this class than in any other of my classes.
5.  A
6.  3.5