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

Teaching Evaluations - Overall Rating 2.6/4.0

Criteria of evaluation W04 W02 F01 W01 F00 S99 W99 W97 F92 W92 F91
Org. and prep. of lectures and discussions 2.68 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 3.75 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 2.63 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 2.00 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 2.70 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 2.61 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 2.04 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 2.59 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]


Student 1
1. Glaser was very interested in the subject, which made the class more 
interesting.  I couldn't understand him or hear him.
2. He was good, but hard to understand.
3. It was interesting and a lot was a lot was accomplished.  
4. It was okay.
5. C
6. 3.9

Student 2
1. Strong: Excited about subject matter.
Weak: Hard to follow, no structure, difficult to hear and understand.
2. Poor, very random and hard to follow  
3. Strong: variety of ways learning was acclompished [sic]. 
Weak: Difficult to learn in lecture/
4. Average
5. C
6. 3.533

Student 3
1. Strong: Knows material 
Weak: Poor lecturer, beligerant to students uses class to show off 
to students he focuses too much on his research and not enough on his 
teaching.
2. Poor ability to gain students interest.
3. Weak: Too much time required for assignments
    Strong: Focus on real world relevance.
4. Poor
5. E
6. 4.0

Student 4
1. He was sometimes hard to understand or he would use words that were 
new terms and not to write them on the board or anything.  Notes for us 
to follow, an outline, perhaps would have been very helpful.
2. He was very knowledgeable but not very good at relaying the 
information in class.
3. Strong: Take home tests, Weak: material that was covered.
4. It was not very structured or organized and it was a lot of work 
compared to others.
5. C
6. 2.2

Student 5
1. Disorganized lectures, not helpful
2. bad
3. Too much crammed into one semester high difficulty, for 
required course for non-chemistry majors.
4. (blank)
5. E
6. 2.4

Student 6
1. Hard to clearly understand, should slow down a little when 
explaining things.
2. 10 times greater compared to my other chemistry lecturers I have 
had.
3. (blank)
4. It was good because it did a better job of actually teaching me 
chemistry, unlike lower level chemistry courses here at MU.
5. (blank)
6. 2.5

Student 7
1. Could be more organized, jump around less.  Teach more concepts.  Good 
enthusiasm and knowledge though. 
2. Second best chemistry professor out of the three.  Not as good as 
biochemistry though.
3. Too much group work, not enough individual bases.  Enjoyable, 
but don't know how much I really learned.
4. As far as chemistry it is tied for third best.
5. C
6. 3.95

Student 8
1. Didn't talk loud enough, very enthusiastic.
2. He was good.
3. Course was good
4. Great
5. B
6. 2.6

Student 9
1. He assumes that everyone understands lecture completely.  He should 
realize not all of have PhDs in Chemistry.
2. Other professors are more organized, it seems has subjects don't 
flow into one another.
3. (blank)
4. (blank)
5. C
6. 3.0

Student 10
1. Strong: Knows everything and is well structured.  Weak: not 
preparing 
me for exams.
2. Funnier
3. Take home exams too hard, I never could tell what he wanted to know 
questions sometimes fuzzy.
4. Harder
5. B
6. 3.9

Student 11
1. Strong: Enthusiastic. Weak: scatter brained. Needs to show 
train of thoughts in notes.
2. Rambles and has a difficult time to follow train of thought much like 
another professor over in history.
3. Strong: Did a good job making class relevant. Weak: Webtool was 
horrid
4. Hard to follow lecture.
5. C
6. 3.814

Student 12
1. He was very enthusiastic and entertaining.  His disdain for 
tardiness, i.e. stopping lecture wasn't appreciated.
2. [name omitted] was good, but Glaser is better than [name omitted].
3. It was fair overall.
4. It's in the middle of the pan.
5. C
6. 3.25

Student 13
1. Strong: Knowledgeable. Weak: volume, clarity of writing and when 
people came in late and he made a big deal of it.  It disrupted us 
more  from his comments rather than the late student.  And, it wasn't 
like he was always on time, and we said nothing of it.
2. Language, you are an extremely educated man, cursing is not necessary.
3. Weak: very, very time consuming.
4. similar overall
5. C
6. 2.98

Student 14
1.
2. Gives you different way to learn chemistry, gets you to think 
outside the box.
3. Work load is too heavy.  Need to keep in mind most of the 
students have a  full load of courses.
4. very hard
5. B
6. 3.5

Student 15
1. Strong: he is very knowledgeable.  Weak: sometimes hard to follow.  
2. He's one of the better ones.
3. Strong: Webtool.  Weak: Ciitn. [???] 
4. It was challenging.
5. B
6. 3.5

Student 16
1. I needed more structure in class schedule.
2. Better than most in science average to other lecturers in general.
3. Course material good.
4. Average in general, above average in science.
5. B
6. 3.47

Student 17
1. Strong: Enjoys what he is teaching.  Weak: Not able to bring the 
material to our level as students.
2. The same, I feel as if they all teach over the students head.
3. Strong: Good base of organic material knowledge.  
   Weak: A little too much, maybe only cover [?] of what was 
learned this year and really let 
the students learn.
4. Harder because I did not comprehend as well, I did go to tutors.
5. C
6. 3.2

Student 18
1. Overall, the lectures were solid.  I do like it when a teacher 
makes an outline notes available.  The ones we had outlined were too long and 
did specifically follow directions.
2. Overall about average, better than some, but nothing special.
3. (blank)
4. Fairly good compared to others.
5. B
6. 3.7

Student 19
1. I have no dout [sic] that this man is smart, so smart he might be 
autistic, but he is not a good teacher.  There is a huge lack of 
ability to teach.
2. He is the worse I've had in my entire academic career.
3. The course was okay, and the material was good.
4. I hated it.
5. E
6. 3.9

Student 20
1. I think the lecturer is difficult to follow, if you haven’t read 
the text.  But that’s my fault when those things don’t get done.
2. Very engaging and informative.
3. Outside application was helpful.  The lack of much structure was a 
difficult adjustment.
4. One of the best I’ve had—honestly.
5. A
6. 3.9

Student 21
1. He clearly knows his stuff, but I think maybe that's part of the 
problem in lecture.  He excepts everyone to get it and love it because he 
does.  I would bet there are maybe 2 people who can follow his lecture 
the whole class. 
2. The other lecturers were much more organized and made a point to make 
sure people were following along.
3. We learned about organic chemistry in a variety of ways but it 
takes up way too much time.  
4. Difficult and took up much more time than any other.
5. D
6. 4.0

Student 22
1. Strong: Good lecturer.  Weak: Could help students learn more by 
braking [sic] it down more.
2. Quite comparable
3. Overall, the course was good.
4. (blank)
5. B
6. 3.1

Student 23
1. He is able to communicate well, however the organization is lacking in 
this course.
2. He has a lot of enthusiasm and drive and is a pretty good lecturer.
3. CIITN project and assignments=weak.  Too much time and 
commitment.
4. This course is difficult, and almost impossible to receive an 
A.
5. D
6. 3.73

Student 24
1. Very unorganized and doesn't clearly identify subjects he is 
explaining.
2. Extremely difficult to following most cases.  The end of the semester 
was better.
3. The material is not extremely difficult but I felt like I should 
have received honors credit.
4. Manageable but not my favorite by any means.  
5. C
6. 3.8

Student 25
1. He is really enthusiastic and makes lecture interesting.  Sometimes he 
is confusing.
2. He has more gusto.
3. Strong: we learn a lot of material.  Weak: need more real life 
applications.
4. More interesting but harder.
5. B
6. 3.03

Student 26
1. He expected us to know a lot, but it was from the assigned reading 
and 
helped us to understand the lecture.  
2. He was fine no real complaints on the lecture.
3. The take home tests, I felt that they were extremely hard.  Even with 
all the resources at our fingertips the high on the tests was an 87.  
4. It was a good course, but I don't know if I am prepared for 
212. 
5. B
6. 3.8

Student 27
1. The lecturer seems knowledgeable on the subject but I don't feel 
that he has taught us enough to make it through Organic II 
successfully.
2. I would rate him lower just because I don't like his style of 
teaching.
3. Weak: everything is done in a group.  Strong: don't have to come 
as often as a regular class. 
4. I would rate this course lower because I don't like working with 
people.
5. C
6. 3.714

Student 28
1. Suggestions present in a fashion that allows students to take notes.  
You are too random.
2. Hard to follow, won't give sample problems, all in all, horrible 
experience.
3. CIITN is a waste of time, get rid of it.  
4. Horrible course, bad lecturer.
5. D
6. 3.4

Student 29
1. Sometimes, I have no idea what is going on because he makes no since 
[sic].
2. Pretty decent.  More interesting than most.
3. The take home tests are good, but those of us going on to organic 
II are screwed.  
4. (blank)
5. C
6. 2.88

Student 30
1. Strong: Keeps you interested.  Weak: Confusing at times.
2. Better than regular chemistry professors.
3. Strong: Organized. Weak: didn't learn as much.
4. Harder
5. B
6. 3.55

Student 31
1. Strong: really loves Organic Chemistry and teaching.  
2. Good Overall, enthusiastic and shows real world uses and points.
3. Interesting to some
4. Pretty good.
5. B
6. 3.52

Student 32
1. Strong: he made lectures interesting with dances and interaction.  
Weak: couldn't hear him read what he wrote on the board, he was 
disorganized and when into new concepts quickly.
2. I had a really great organized, interesting lecturer in Quat., so 
coming to this class was like losing my compass.  I didn't even know 
where to begin teaching myself in Chemistry.
3. CIITN is a waste of time and the class was so disorganized that I 
didn't learn anything.  Good thing is that I met a lot of my 
classmates.  
4. My other classes had structure and the lectures were organized to have 
main points that were clear.  This class made me feel lost 
constantly.
5. E
6. 4.0  

Student 33
1. No structure, use overheads, outlines.  
2. Not as good, no problem solving at all.
3. Take home tests are poor evaluations of student knowledge.  
4. Poor
5. D
6. (blank)

Student 34
1. Hard to follow and very frustration with information he thinks we 
should know, he skips over much points then tests on them.
2. Not as good
3. Chem 210 sucks anyway, who cares about organic chemistry.
4. I hate it
5. D
6. 3.3

Student 35
1. Strong: a lot in one day.  Weak: not thoroughly explained.
2. Other teachers have printout of notes which tend to work.
3. Strong: can use in the future, very informative.
4. Harder to understand.
5. C
6. 2.8

Student 36
1. Strong: interest expressed in subject.  Weak: Sometimes hard to 
understand, not often.
2. I would say by far this lecturer kept my attention the most out of 
all my chemistry courses.
3. Strong: group work.  Weak: CIITN
4. This course is structured in a nice way, don't change too much 
about it.
5. B
6. 2.6

Student 37
1. Strong: keep our attention and provides many different ways to learn.
2. Enthusiastic, knows what he's talking about.
3. course was difficult
4. Difficult because all concepts were brand new
5. B
6. 3.5

Student 38
1. (blank)
2. (blank)
3. (blank)
4. good
5. A
6. 3.2

Student 39
1. (blank)
2. Made it fun, but didn't really learn any new concepts.
3. (blank)
4. (blank)
5. C
6. 2.5

Student 40
1. Explain things a little better.
2. Pretty good, very enthusiastic
3. Good lectures that are interesting
4. hard but good
5. B
6. 3.3

Student 41
1. The lecturer could speak louder.
2. Lecturer was more enthusiastic than others.
3. (blank)
4. (blank)
5. B
6. (blank)

Student 42
1. His strong feature is that his knowledge of chemistry is great.  The 
weakness to this is that he doesn’t teach it very well.
2. I liked the other lectures better because they explained things on an 
understandable level the first time.
3. The subjects were helpful and diverse.
4. Not the same.
5. C
6. (blank)

Student 43
1. I think there should be an outline of notes everyone has the teacher 
so it is easier to follow and he won't get sidetracked.  But RG kept 
me interested through out all of the class and made me enjoy the 
class.
2. I thought he was one of the best teachers I have had here at MU.  He 
cared to involve us in real world applications.
3. I suggest more homework problems and use the text.
4. The best chemistry class I have taken at MU.
5. A
6. 3.2

Student 44
1. There didn’t seem to be much structure as far as lectures.
2. Didn’t seem as professional- also didn’t seem organized so 
that students could follow.
3. Don’t like that the grading wasn’t same for everyone, also, 
didn’t learn much because for exams, just went to internet to find 
answers.
4. I don’t feel I learned as much in this class compared to others.
5. B
6. 3.1

Student 45
1. I think Glaser is very interesting to listen to but his notes should 
be more structural.  Sometimes it’s hard to figure out what he’s 
talking about.
2. I really like Glaser as a lecturer.  He is not boring at all.
3. I wish I learned more about Organic instead of group work.
4. It’s very different, never had been in groups or had take home 
tests for this kind of class.
5. B
6. 3.0

Student 46
1. Great enthusiasm, needs to either get a mic or talk louder.
2. About the same
3. Time consuming
4. More interactive
5. B
6. 3.3

Student 47
1. Strong: He always is enthusiastic and the drawings really helpful.  
Weak: sometimes I get bored. 
2. (blank)
3. Strong: love the group work.  Weak: none
4. It’s about even but a little bit harder than other courses.
5. A
6. 2.2

Student 48
1. Give more examples and make the handwriting is clear.
2. Others use PowerPoint on projects.
3. Strong: Enthusiasm.  Weak: Clarity
4. Lot more difficult.
5. C
6. 2.87

Student 49
1. Could be more organized more structured, have it relate back to book.  
Very enthusiastic though.
2. Lees organized, less from book.
3. Suggest homework problems, utilize book more.
4. it was good, best chemistry class yet.
5. B
6. 3.4

Student 50
1. Needs to follow an outline better.
2. He’s about the same…hard to follow sometimes.
3. Easier Tests.
4. Harder than most
5. C
6. 2.8

Student 51
1. Strong: Enthusiasm.  Weak: hard to follow lecture, could be taught 
better.
2. Explanations not very effective.
3. Strong: Lots of information.  Weak: don’t think I will do good in 
Chemistry 212.
4. Not as good.
5. C
6. 3.1

Student 52
1. More structure and direction; you have to assume we know nothing about 
organic chemistry.  I feel that was skipped over, and I fell behind.  I 
would like more structured lectures and notes to study.
2. Really bad.  I have learned the least amount I ever have learned in a 
class as in 210.
3. I don’t feel like I can rate the course, because I really 
didn’t learn anything.
4. Not interesting, not stimulating, BAD
5. E
6. 3.8

Student 53
1. The lectures were very hard to follow.  Sometimes we couldn’t hear 
what he was saying either.
2. He was very enthusiastic, unlike other professors I’ve had, but I 
didn’t learn much from him.
3. The test were way too hard, I didn’t learn anything from them.
4. I didn’t learn hardly anything in this course.
5. E
6. (blank)

Student 54
1. Enthusiastic, speaking volume and clarity were poor.  Hard to follow 
at times.
2. Fit in line with most chemistry lectures except Rainer made things a 
little more interesting.
3. Group Work was strong.  Giving students an ideal guideline of what 
they should know.
4. Fair, on the lines of Chemistry.
5. B
6. 3.5

Student 55
1. Strong: knows his stuff.  Weak: He’s brilliant but didn’t 
really break the material down enough.
2. He was nice, I wish he would have reached out more though.
3. Strong: I taught is was structured in a way two really learn the 
material.  Weak: reading newspaper postings everyday got annoying.  What 
did he want from it?
4. Really good, liked how it was set-up.
5. B
6. 3.0

Student 56
1. Very enthusiastic; seems very knowledgeable about the material.  
Sometimes the notes were a little hard to follow.
2. More enthusiastic, equally qualified, class was a little more 
difficult.
3. Course helped organic chemistry become more relevant but was 
difficult. 
4. More difficult
5. C
6. 3.0

Student 57
1. Needs some kind of structure to notes, put typed overhead up with key 
points because I can never read his handwriting.
2. Knows so much that it seems like he has trouble bringing it down to 
our level.
3. Less group projects where grade depends on the other students.  More 
individual assignments.
4. Very hard, lots of material to understand.
5. D
6. 3.46

Student 58
1. Very distracted when students come in late.  Very passionate about 
chemistry.
2. One of the best if not the best.
3. Moves to quickly, but very interesting.
4. Very difficult.
5. B
6. 3.0

Student 59
1. He was very enthusiastic because it was hard at times to understand 
what he was saying and writing.
2. He was a pretty good lecturer compared to my other chemistry teachers.
3. It was pretty interesting but it was hard to understand.
4. It was alright.
5. B
6. 3.335

Student 60
1. Very enthusiastic about chemistry, but I really didn’t care or 
want to learn about it.  Just want to pass and leave.
2. Overall, he is the best chemistry professor I’ve had, however my 
biology t eachers have been much better.
3. CIITN was best.
4. Best chemistry I’ve had.
5. B
6. 3.6

Student 61
1. Enthusiastic, knowledgeable, but hard to understand sometimes.
2. About the same
3.  I like take home exams
4. It is about the same as others.
5. B
6. 3.35

Student 62
1. Sometimes made ideas to complicate when a simple explanation would do.
2. Somewhat similar, but mostly harder to understand.
3. Material covered was difficult, needed more and better explanation.
4. Similar
5. B
6. 3.6

Student 63
1. Need to construct lectures better on a day to day basis.
2. Use a better method of note taking, like an overhead.
3. Strong: CIITN.  Weak: clarity of expectations for projects.
4. Does not seem as organized.
5. C
6. 3.2

Student 64
1. Dr. Glaser skips around a lot and it could be very confusing.
2. Sort of unorganized compared to others.
3. Almost felt intimated to ask questions because he would interrupt or 
make you feel unintelligent.
4. (blank)
5. C
6. 3.0

Student 65
1. Strong: interesting material.  Weak: hard to follow at times.
2. Much more enthusiastic and interesting- encourages learning.
3. Strong: interesting material.  Weak: difficult material.
4. Much more interesting.
5. B
6. 3.4

Student 66
1. He is enthusiastic, but lacks organization skills and getting his 
points across.
2. Glaser is difficult to follow.
3. Try to break it down better.
4. It’s tough.
5. C
6. 3.3

Student 67
1. The class lecture is a bit scattered, I find it very hard to follow 
and understand.  maybe use of overhead and outline would help.
2. Not very good.  Most teachers use a great deal of technology and 
animations, especially PowerPoint.
3. This class was very hard, I had to work a lot harder than a regular 
class, but one group work was not that bad.
4. The course is very different due to group work.
5. C
6. 3.426

Student 68
1. Strong: very knowledgeable, helpful and enthusiastic about subject.  
Weak: should use microphone or PowerPoint to help fill in gaps.
2. I think Dr. Glaser is a excellent professor.  Very focused on teaching 
and making sure he provides different methods of learning for different 
styles of teaching.
3. (blank)
4. This is a tough course, a RSD should be included.
5. B
6. 3.4

Student 69
1. Has exceptional knowledge but then starts to lecture “over our 
heads” and everyone gets lost.  You should speak louder.
2. Good, cares about subject and students in his lecture.
3. Course needs to have explanations that need to be met.
4. Harder than all other chemistry courses.
5. C
6. 3.57

Student 70
1. He had no formal structure for class and was very hard to follow.  He 
also has very confusing and didn’t clarify.  He did have an 
enthusiasm for the topic which made us enjoy it too.
2. He seemed to not care and didn’t help or explain when we need it.  
He was not as good as my other science lecturers.
3. Strong: related to world issues and made you think and comprehend.  
Weak: very time consuming and demanding.
4. Not as well structured and to much demand considering I have other 
classes.
5. C
6. 3.37

Student 71
1. Good speaker, easy to understand- make test not take home.
2. Good at keeping attention but don’t feel like I’ve learned 
enough.
3. Grade on a curve- don’t have take home test- force students to 
learn.
4. Ok… should have learned more.
5. C
6. 3.45

Student 72
1. (blank)
2. More difficult (test)
3. (blank)
4. more difficult
5. B
6. 3.0

Student 73
1. Gave good facts but he really didn’t teach us why this happens or 
that happens he just told us it happened.
2. Not as good as last semester with Sharp.  He explained concepts, not 
just facts.
3. Strong is the group work to understand but the weak is overall 
projects.
4. By far the hardest.
5. C
6. 2.9

Student 74
1. Glaser went very fast.  But we did learn a lot and not sure if I am 
fully prepared for 212 though.
2. Good, but he could explain certain things better.
3. Hard course- can’t be helpful
4. Hard
5. B
6. 3.65

Student 75
1. This class has an entirely different perspective of teaching.  It 
would be important to maintain this style throughout a chemistry 
undergraduate career to maintain sanity.
2. The professor does well, however, his ability to convey the important 
student study could be enhanced.
3. It was a good course.
4. With a class this size the take home tests could have had a better 
grading scheme.
5. B
6. 3.235

Student 76
1. Strong: Knowledgeable, organized and interesting.  Weak: moves very 
fast.  Suggestions: Take time to pause and let students catch up.
2. Much more enthusiastic 
3. (blank)
4. It was hard but fair.
5. B
6. 3.01

Student 77
1. There seemed to be no coherent structure.  We would jump all around, 
talking about nothing that seemed to be on the test.
2. This has been one of the worst, I haven’t learned anything.
3. The test have nothing to do with the book or lecture and too much time 
expected outside of class.
4. Terrible.
5. D
6. 3.24

Student 78
1. Dr. Glaser skips around in lecture.  He’ll start on one subject go 
to another and then go back to the first one.
2. Dr. Glaser is one of the worst lecturers I’ve ever had.
3. The course focused on points in shouldn’t have.  We were jumping 
ahead learning chemistry 212 stuff when we should have been doing 
chemistry 210 stuff.
4. I hated this course.
5. D
6. 3.25

Student 79
1. Had trouble following lecture.
2. (blank)
3. (blank)
4. (blank)
5. B
6. 2.5

Student 80
1. Professor explained concepts well.  When asked a question in class, I 
didn’t understand the answer.
2. Lecturers sometimes easy to follow, sometimes I would get lost.
3. Very difficult material, but I learned a lot.
4. Difficult material
5. B
6. 3.7

Student 81
1. Dr. Glaser is a very effective lecturer.  He keeps the attention of 
the students well.  He should write more things on the board- some 
spellings we don’t know.
2. He is one of the best chemistry lecturers I’ve ever had.
3. This course is horrible.  I hate how it is structured and don’t 
feel like I have learned much at all.  
4. It was very ineffective.
5. D
6. 3.91

Student 82
1. Lively
2. Keeps attention well because very enthusiastic 
3. (blank)
4. I learned more in a previous organic chemistry class.
5. B
6. 3.67

Student 83
1. Strong: knows subject and energetic.  Weak: What he writes on the 
board is very hard to follow.  It is difficult to take good notes.  He 
needs to organize lectures for better note taking.
2. My biology class follows a nice outline during class, Chemistry 32 
notes online to help follow the class.  This organic needs something to 
help students take good notes.
3. The chemistry part was good, but the CIITN was a waste of time.
4. My other courses didn’t have as much wasted project than in like 
210.
5. C
6. 3.46

Student 84
1. Strong: sometimes funny, more dirty jokes. Weak: test too hard, 
sometimes can’t hear the lecturer.
2. Sorry, but Glaser is not the best I have, I had Dr. Adams for 
Chemistry 32 and he is good.
3. Strong: Don’t know.  Weak: not interesting subject.
4. Almost my least favorite 
5. C
6. 2.87

Student 85
1. (blank)
2. he was good, very enthusiastic
3. balance between CIITN and normal format.
4. (blank)
5. B
6. 2.8

Student 86
1. Energetic, gets you to pay attention.  Lectures sometimes seemed 
scattered.
2. Best chemistry course class I’ve had… through that’s not 
saying much.
3. suggested problems to work from would be handy.
4. Pretty good, one of the more interesting ones.
5. A
6. 3.4

Student 87
 Great knowledge, but sometimes questions his ability to make students 
learn in such a lower level organic class.
In the middle, had better, had worse.  Overall, Biology has better.
Lots of time has been occupied, which has taken away from my other 
classes, especially with adding components such as assignments outside of 
class.
Middle range.
C
3.0

Student 88
Weaks of the lecturer was that while easy to follow it was often 
difficult to translate the lecturer into notes.
It was more interesting, and much more active.
The course exams where hard, however the curve helped to a count for 
this.
(blank)
B
3.0

Student 89
1. (blank)
2. (blank)
3. (blank)
4. (blank)
5. B
6. 3.0

Student 90
1. He moved way to fast, I felt like.  He was a very animated speaker 
though, so I still enjoyed coming to class.
2. He used a lot less technology in his lecture.  I think he would have 
been easier to follow if he has used more.
3. The course is very difficult all by itself, but it does pertain more 
to the real world.
4. It was a lot harder than my other courses.
5. B
6. 3.23

Student 91
1. He has a good sense of humor.  I like the character.
2. There were no handouts.  In some case a few students are not capable 
of hearing.
3. Good lecture
4. Good lecture
5. A
6. (blank)

Student 92
1. Hard to follow sometimes.  Good real world examples.
2. Good, he knows a lot.
3. (blank)
4. Good
5. C
6. 4.0

Student 93
1. Covered all necessary material for test/quizzes.  Only excommunication 
is to go over news articles during class.
2. He’s more enthusiastic about his field of expertise than most.
3. Strong: group collaborations, combination of lecture and textbook.  
Weak: difficult to understand what textbook problems to do.
4. It rates better than any other chemistry course.
5. B
6. 3.46

Student 94
1. Very disorganized.  He had the tendency to skip around, and it was 
hard to follow him.
2. He was okay.  I’ve had better and worse.
3. The exams were inefficient and pointless.  Although I didn’t care 
for the take home exams, it wasn’t fair to make the scheduled take 
home final an in class one.
4. This was by far the worst I’ve taken.
5. D
6. 3.0

Student 95
1. He was great in making us understand concepts and ideas by applying it 
to our life situations.  He could have been much more organized though.
2. Much more friendly and approachable.  But class lectures lack 
coordination.
3. Covers too much information- could be made into 4/5 credit class.
4. Good- lot of learning (not enough time)
5. B
6. 3.8

Student 96
1. Irritating and condescending manner in which questions were asked.
2. He might be near the top.
3. Too much information in too little time.
4. I dislike chemistry, but I really disliked this course.
5. C
6. (blank)

Student 97
1. Strong: He defiantly knows what he is talking about and keeps people 
in class.  Weak: he jumped around.
2. I feel that he was on average with all the other science teachers.  He 
made things a little more enthusiastic for students.
3. (blank)
4. It is much harder than any course I have taken before.
5. C
6. 3.2

Student 98
1. Too quick on some subjects.  Jumped around and elaborated too much on 
certain topics instead of explaining basic organic chemistry.
2. All courses before this were done in high school with a close teacher 
interaction.
3. Lecture: Helpful, Book: helpful, Test/Quizzes: Not helpful.
4. Not good
5. D
6. 3.85

Student 99
1. Lecture needs to follow book more.
2. This class got you more involved so it was good.
3. Lecture needs to follow book more.
4. It was good.
5. B
6. 2.9

Student 100
1. Hard to follow, not helpful outside of class and learn people skills 
of kindness.
2. He doesn’t compare, others are much better.
3. Lots of diversity.  Learned valuable skills and developed new 
qualities but learned no chemistry.
4. totally different (so much group work)
5. B
6. 2.5

Student 101
1. More organization and clearer explanations would have contributed 
greatly to my success, instead I felt like I was fumbling around in the 
dark.
2. I have had much much better lecturers in most of my other classes.
3. The course was to packed with expectations, and was really not on 
Introductory course.
4. Hard
5. 3.423

Student 102
1. (blank)
2. (blank)
3. (blank)
4. (blank)
5. B
6. 3.5

Student 103
1. Smart guy, knows what he’s talking about.  Making the class 
interesting with side stones make a lot of mistakes on the board and 
talking on accident can be confusing.
2. More enthusiastic.
3. Weak: take home test, large groups.  Strong: good instructor, helpful 
TA’s.
4. About the same.
5. B
6. 3.45

Student 104
1. Too smart; needs to make things simpler, never stops, very fast.
2. Very involved in class, answers questions on discussion fast but not 
very precise.
3. Vary hard material; a lot at one time especially for new stuff.
4. Harder
5. C
6. 3.7

Student 105
1. He did make things interesting, but it was really very randomly 
organized.  We jumped around so much that it was hard to follow.
2. He was average, but kind of hard to follow.
3. This course really didn’t make organic chemistry that easy to 
learn.  All of my learning was out of the book.
4. This was the worst.
5. C
6. 3.7

Student 106
1. No comment
2. He is much easier to understand and makes the course easier to 
understand.
3. It’s a hard course but fair.
4. (blank)
5. A
6. 2.5

Student 107
1. His “style” of lecturing was not helpful to my learning.  He 
rarely tired thoroughly to explain concepts, he just talked about the 
concepts instead of teaching them.
2. He needed to explain and teach the material better.  I’m not 
saying he didn’t know what he was talking about he wasn’t very 
good at explaining.
3. The course set up was wonderful.
4. Challenging and informative.
5. B
6. 2.8

Student 108
1. Strong: Enthusiastic.  Weak: Did not appear to follow logical order.
2. Not as effective as others.
3. Strong: Covered a lot of the material.  Weak: did not provide clear 
reasoning of material.
4. Did not enjoy this course.  I have enjoyed all others even in 
different subject matter.
5. C
6. 3.57

Student 109
1. Lectures didn’t seem to relate to the exams very much so we had to 
figure everything out on our own.  Dr. Glaser did have a lot of chemistry 
knowledge.
2. I liked Dr. Glaser but I didn’t learn as much from him.
3. Lectures need to prepare the student for the exams.
4. It is very hard.
5. C
6. 3.7

Student 110
1. No organization, needs to structure and plan course, material better 
and follow book for easier studying.
2. Was less enthusiastic and less capable of teaching than other science 
lecturers.
3. I feel incapable of rating the course because the lecturer made it 
difficult to learn.
4. Much more difficult to study for and understand.
5. D
6. 3.5

Student 111
1. He focuses on helping us understand by using things around us.  He 
doesn’t use the textbook much.
2. He’s the greatest chemistry teacher I’ve had so far.
3. It’s about our everyday life, very difficult.
4. It’s extremely difficult and requires had work.
5. C
6. 2.5

Student 112
1. Strong: kept the class interesting and lively.  Weak: hard to 
understand at times and hard to read his writing.
2. Lots more interesting, but also a lot more demanding.
3. Strong: Covered a wide range of topics.  Weak: did not go into much 
detail.
4. Okay, not as good as some.
5. B
6. 3.38

Student 113
1. Nice Guy, he made some parts almost interesting.  Weak: the class was 
weak- I didn’t like the TA’s- usually I go to them for help but I 
felt like they had no idea what was going on.
2. Fine
3. Strong: concepts are good.  Weak: group work/ group project… should 
have in class time.
4. Other chemistry classes I’ve taken I’ve earned my grade.
5. D
6. 3.8

Student 114
1. Dr. Glaser is very enthusiastic.  However, he lectures from a stand 
point that we already know what he is talking about.  We Don’t!!  I 
was confused most of the time I was in class but I was too scared of him 
to ask questions.  He seems to laugh at his students.  I suggest he makes 
himself more approachable.
2. I’ve had better.
3. The strong point of the course was the group work it helped a lot.  
The weak point was the book assigned.
4. A lot worse.
5. D
6. 3.8

Student 115
1. He knows what he is talking about but he goes kind of fast and it is 
hard to follow him sometimes.
2. They all know their stuff and I think he would be a 4 on a 1-5 scale.
3. Projects were weak.  Exams/Quizzes were strong.
4. Nit my favorite.
5. B
6. 3.2

Student 116
1. Glaser is enthusiastic and does a good job answering student 
assignments.  Glaser did not appear to prepare very much, if at all, for 
lectures. 
2. Glaser is an average lecturer.  Better than most chemistry professors- 
worse than most Biology or other professor.  Used a lot of offensive 
language.
3.  Course was filled with time-consuming assignments that didn’t 
help the learning process.
4.  Similar to other chemistry courses.
5.  C
6.  3.2

Student 117
Unorganized
Enthusiastic but unorganized.
(blank)
(blank)
C
3.75

Student 118
Needs to write clearer on the board, and larger.  The material was hard 
to understand, and it didn’t really follow along with the book.
He is one of the worst in clarity of points and lecture material and 
explanation.
I thought the course material was fine it is just the way it was 
presented.
I would rate this with like Chemistry 33.
C
2.84

Student 119
1. Strong: funny, easy to follow.  Weak: easy to follow, but the 
relevance of the class to real was non-existent.
2. Again, funnier, more entertaining, you can see he really loves 
chemistry.  But no logical course organization.
3. Discuss relevance in class instead of through newspapers.  Lecture is 
easy to follow, itself, but I couldn’t tell you the purpose of any of 
it.
4. Much more frustrating.  The only thing I learned from this is the 
group, test which is opposite from all my other classes.
5. C
6. 3.4

Student 120
1. Strong: ability to guide the thought process of the students 
authoritative lecturer.  Weak: somewhat intimidating.
2. Glaser is among the best lecturers I have had and I am a senior.
3. Group work load was burdensome.  I had anticipated the course to be 
much more difficult than it turned out to be.
4. Excellent.
5. A
6. 3.2

Student 121
1. Strong: knew what he was talking about.  Weak: Lecture did not flow 
smoothly.  Provide an outline for the topic of the class.
2. Lack of use of the technology.
3. Strong: uses of groups, work and take home exams used for learning.  
Weak: textbook, text is extremely confusing and not clear.
4. Used more out of class learning.
5. C
6. 2.5

Student 122
1. I felt like I couldn’t follow half the time.  I had to make side 
notes in my notes so I could understand them two days later.
2. Definitely the most enthusiastic.
3. The groups should get points to meet on regular basis.
4. It was hard.
5.   (blank)
6    3.3

Student 123
1. He was enthusiastic about chemistry.  I feel like he did not teach the 
basics of Organic chemistry such as nomenclature.  His lectures were hard 
to follow at times.  He did make some lectures fun and easy.  Most 
lectures seemed pointless.
2. I don’t believe this university gets good chemistry teachers.  
Glaser was about the same.
3. The take home tests were too difficult along with the take home quiz.
4. Hardest.
5. D
6. 3.75

Student 124
1. He was sometimes hard to hear.  Occasionally jumped from one topic to 
another with little or no explanation.
2. He’s very knowledgeable
3. Weak: no in class tests. (makes me study more)  Strong: points for 
things other than test and quizzes.
4. A little more challenging.
5. B
6. 3.92

Student 125
1. Lectures need to be more organized.  He’s very enthusiastic.
2. Good lecturer in comparison, poor organizer.
3. Didn’t feel like I got the basics of chemistry 210.
4. Poorer
5. C
6. 3.4

Student 126
1. Have more organized notes.
2. He makes class much more interesting than other lectures.
3. Very interesting, CIITN was too time consuming.
4. This one was more interesting, but I learned more in other classes.
5. B
6. 3.0

Student 127
1. I didn’t feel there was enough concrete structure- we could never 
predict what he really wanted us to know for exams/quizzes.  He’s 
enthusiastic.
2. Too disorganized, but very knowledgeable.
3. The course in itself lacked organization- I feel that it should 
concentrate more on preparing us for chemistry 212, we need the relevant 
information to succeed.
4. Unorganized, difficult to follow or keep up.
5. C
6. 3.6

Student 128
1. The lecture did not seem to have much structure, I read the book to 
help clarify and study for exams, but it wasn’t very useful.
2. Not very effective to teach material.
3. Make it known what is expected to know for exams.
4. This was my least favorite science class.
5. D
6. 3.65

Student 129
He was very enthusiastic and was willing to explain things in a different 
manner.  I wish we would have had in class test and take home quizzes so 
we would memorize the material.
I wish he would have had PowerPoint to accompany lectures.
Amount of material was good.  In class test.
I didn’t learn enough because I was not forced to memorize for a 
test.
C
3.8

Student 130
He was interested in the material but didn’t stimulate in the class.
Less organized, interesting enough personality.
It was average.
It was okay.
C
3.0

Student 131
His clarity is excellent and ability to clear up confusions from students 
is superb.  He does well with getting the class involved in the lecture 
that creates a positive, non-intimidating atmosphere.
He thus far one if the top two in the science course that I here had in 
getting as much information to the students in each lecture as possible.
(blank)
It is one of the most difficult and challenging course I have had yet.  
This is defiantly a plus.
B
2.5

Student 132
He memorized and talked with his back to the class.  Some material was 
hard to understand, but he knows his information.
He was good, he should explain or give more examples- remember we 
don’t know this information.
Exam questions did not relate to class notes.
Didn’t retain as much from group exams.
C
3.0

Student 133
1. Lecture does not follow forms of test at all.  His lectures were weak 
and unorganized.  He seemed disinterested while giving lectures.
2. He wasn’t very descriptive and didn’t go in depth.  He 
didn’t seem like he cared if we learned.
3. Weak features were the take home test.  I didn’t feel the group 
projects helped us learn anything about the subject matter.
4. I didn’t learn nearly as much and it was poorly run by the 
professor.
5. D
6. 3.67

Student 134
1. Could speak louder as was hard to hear in the back.
2. Dr. Glaser knows his subject material, taught it in a way that made 
science make sense.  He showed you why just not what.
3. Subject material has always been hard.
4. Very good course.
5. A
6. 2.8
Student 135
1. Excellent knowledge and enthusiastic, but not much focus on CIITN.
2. About the same
3. Take home assignments helped learning a lot, but CIITN focused too 
much on news than chemistry.
4. Too much news, not enough science.
5. B
6. 3.662

Student 136
1. He was enthusiastic, but sometimes it was hard to see how his lectures 
would work for the tests/assignments, but they always matched up.
2. I liked him the most and he was the one who has helped me the most.
3. Course is hard.
4. I took 210 last semester and couldn’t do it all.  Glaser made me 
understand chemistry.
5. B
6. 2.7

Student 137
1. He goes off on tangents doesn’t always finish topics.
2. Not so understandable.
3. Actually learning stuff might help.
4. Group work fun- not so good otherwise.
5. C
6. 4.0

Student 138
1. He’s enthusiastic about the topic, but lacks organization.
2. He is as good.
3. It’s a lot of material.
4. Equal
5. B
6. 3.8

Student 139
1. Teaches at too high of a level- I don’t understand everything.
2. (blank)
3. (blank)
4. ok
5. C
6. 3.0

Student 140
1. (blank)
2. (blank)
3. (blank)
4. (blank)
5. C
6. 3.0

Student 141
1. Overall he’s good.
2. Much better than I’ve had in the past.
3. Overall is fine
4. I think it is a little hard; the grades should be weighted more.
5. C
6. 3.0

Student 142
1. Strong in enthusiasm but weak in clarity and organization.
2. Needs organization
3. Strong concept of relating to real world but weak in teaching basic 
concepts.
4. Similar but tough.
5. D
6. 3.4

Student 143
1. Seems like a really cool guy, but he’s hard to hear and sometimes 
understand.  It’s hard to follow him through the book, and he 
didn’t do anything to change these things when they were brought up.
2. Hard to follow
3. Too much emphasis on side projects, more emphasis should be put on 
material at hand; course should follow the book better.
4. A lot worse.
5. D
6. 3.74

Student 144
1. Dr. Glaser is a great lecturer.  Printed notes or overheads would help 
out at times.
2. Much better than average.
3. Too much time with group work; because of this, sometimes the 
chemistry felt rushed.
4. I don’t like all the extra things we had to do.  More work than 
average for 3 hour chemistry course.
5. B
6. 4.0

Student 145
1. Very intelligent person
2. More disorganized
3. Weekly Quizzes
4. I would say less interesting, however, the CIITN made the course fun.
5. B
6. 2.7

Student 146
1. Weak: Organization in lecture is sometimes a problem we go so fast 
sometimes, slow down maybe.  Strong: enthusiastic
2. Very fun and entertaining- lecturer very interested in his subject 
area.
3. Strong: teach from a variety of sources, take home exams are good.  
Weak: in class final, never took a test in class.
4. (blank)
5. A
6. 3.864

Student 147
1. Better explanations of the equations presented in class.
2. Pretty similar.  High enthusiasm and good knowledge of the subject.
3. It covered a lot of material therefore we learned a lot which is good.  
Better instructions on how to study and prepare for class would be nice.
4. It required much more studying than my other classes.
5. B
6. 3.3

Student 148
1. (blank)
2. (blank)
3. (blank)
4. (blank)
5. B
6. 3.0

Student 149
1. Good lectures but lack of reinforcement in the test material.
2. Compared to other chemistry professors- much better
3. (blank)
4. I felt lost than usual in Chemistry course, but still difficult to 
understand.
5. B
6. 3.7

Student 150
1. Got off subject from time to time
2. Very good, discussed no unneeded material
3. Intragroup grading can kill a person’s grade.
4. Pretty Good.
5. B
6. 2.7

Student 151
1. He was enthusiastic but very difficult to follow; the lectures were 
random and did not easily explain concepts.
2. One of the most difficult to understand and learn from that I’ve 
had.
3. Tests did not reflect what was learned in the lectures, they were 
extremely difficult.
4. I learned the least in this course of any that I’ve taken.
5. D
6. 3.96

Student 152
1. The professor constantly contradicts himself and seems to be very 
disorganized during lecture.
2. Other lectures teach the material that will be on the quizzes and 
exams, in contrast to our professor.
3. The first CIITN abstract is pointless and has nothing to do with 
organic chemistry.  Absolute grading without effective teaching= ruined 
GPA’s.
4. (blank)
5. E
6. 3.75

Student 153
1. Vast subject knowledge with the ability to correlate the topics with 
the real world.
2. Other science classes can become monitors, while he kept lecturing 
lively.
3. Strong: Complimented my enrollment in genetics.
4. I enjoyed 	
5. A
6. 4.0

Student 154
1. He knew his material very well; he was very intelligent.  Allow more 
practice.  Give more examples, make learning more stimulating. 
2. I feel the same about all of them- I am neutral science teachers use 
the same methods.
3. Teach  more chemistry, take CIITN out 
4. Unique, only class with group test and absolute grading.  More should 
have it.
5. C
6. 3.4

Student 155
1. (blank)
2. About average… have always had trouble learning from instructors in 
the chemistry department.
3. (blank)
4. (blank)
5. C
6. 3.0

Student 156
1. Always something entertaining said makes coming to class versus just 
reading the textbook worthwhile.  Very witting to talk to students 
outside of class.
2. Class notes very easy to follow and copy down.
3. Group work, great group.  A little too much work to do in time that 
was allotted.  
4. (blank)
5. B
6. 2.8

Student 157
1. Strong: Enthusiastic.  Weak: too brief with some topics was left 
confused.
2. More interested in his subject, 2 thumbs up.
3. (blank)
4. About the same
5. B
6. 2.5

Student 158
1. Strong: He knows chemistry very well.  Weak: he speaks very fast.
2. He is better.
3. Strong: interesting.  Weak: this course was not hard enough
4. Much  better
5. A
6. 2.7

Student 159
1. (blank)
2. (blank)
3. (blank)
4. more difficult
5. B
6. (blank)

Student 160
1. (blank)
2. (blank)
3. (blank)
4. (blank)
5. C
6. 2.0

Student 161
1. Kind of bounces around topics and is hard to follow.  Also needs to 
write bigger or get a projector and a microphone would be good.
2. He is about average
3. The groups are both a good and bad thing.  If you have a horrible 
group then it’s worse you have a great group then it’s better.  
4. This course design takes up a lot of time and I think has some 
unrealistic expectations.
5. C
6. 2.8

Student 162
1. Strong: interesting and intelligent.  Weak: I really don’t know, 
needs to differentiate topic in lecture.
2. Funny
3. Covered stuff from start to finish.
4. All my chemistry classes have been messed up on some level.  This was 
just a new kind of problem.
5. C
6. 3.4

Student 163
1. High Enthusiastic.  Needs to be more structure to the lectures.  
Perhaps note sheets with structures and rxns predrawn so students could 
write what he says, not structures.
2. Other instructors have outlines or some other form of structural to 
lectures.
3. Strong: connection to Organic chemistry to real world situations.  
Weak: only the lack of enough structure to lectures.
4. Harder to follow, but subject matter is easy to follow for me.
5. B
6. 3.785

Student 164
1. Inspired interest in subject.  Some concepts covered to quickly- not 
enough time/examples devoted.
2. Better than most.
3. Too many take home exams.
4. (blank)
5. A
6. 4.0

Student 165
1. He goes a little too quickly when explaining chemistry.  It’s 
difficult to write down lots of hexagons and understand their meaning at 
the same time.
2. About the same for chemistry courses.  He is defiantly more 
enthusiastic though.
3. More learning of the actual text would help.  Assigning text problems 
would have helped.
4. A little better than most chemistry courses.
5. B
6. 3.86

Student 166
1. Strong: includes examples.  Weak: needs more of an outline.
2. Seems to have great knowledge in what he is teaching.
3. Strong: tried to incorporate a variety of teaching methods.  Weak: 
Didn’t go over certain topics long enough.
4. It was just as hard as other chemistry courses.
5. B
6. 2.9

Student 167
1. Strong: loves his material.  Weak: embarrassing students when walking 
into class late.
2. (blank)
3. (blank)
4. (blank)
5. (blank)
6. (blank)

Student 168
1. Strong: He knows what he is talking about and it is obvious he enjoys 
what he does.  Loved his examples in class.  Weak: wasn’t clear what 
we needed to focus on. Needs to be more specific about what we should 
know.
2. I think his style is better for graduate students.  Difficult to 
understand because we had to put so much effort and time in this one it 
hurt other classes.
3. Not enough information for 212, I do not feel prepared.
4. Difficult but important.
5. A
6. (blank)

Student 169
1. Hard to hear sometimes.  Hard to read his handwriting on the board.
2. His more interesting for sure than other chemistry professors but 
sometimes I go lost in his lecture.
3. The course was fast moving but easier to handle because in a group.  I 
can’t think of any improvements.
4. It is different than any other class.  I liked the group format a lot.
5. B
6. 3.34

Student 170
1. Follow thoughts completely, don’t jump around.  Follow a specific 
outline.  Dress professionally and brush your hair.
2. Very disorganized with his thoughts, very moody.
3. Connect the teaching style in 210 and 212 so students know what to 
expect.
4. More group orientated and unorganized.
5. C
6. 3.0

Student 171
1. He goes too fast and doesn’t explain himself.  The examples on the 
board seem random and unexplained.  Hard to follow.
2. This is the highest science course I have had but I can compare to 
chemistry 32.  Glaser is more enthusiastic but he is less helpful.  I had 
questions about my grade on the second exam that still haven’t been 
answered.
3. Needs to either move slower or have more in class time.
4. Not very educational
5. C
6. 3.4

Student 172
1. He has great enthusiasm for the material and tries to do everything he 
can to help the students.  He really wants us to learn the material and 
tries his best for us to do so.
2. Much more exciting to listen to and very fair with course material.
3. Course is very hard and requires a lot more time.  This is the most 
work I’ve done in a 3 hour credit course.
4. You learn a great deal in the course and is relevant to the real 
world.
5. B
6. 3.2

Student 173
1. Lecture was extremely hard to follow.  There was a very bad lack of 
organization.  Hardly anything written on the chalkboard was readable.  
Figures and drawings on the board were impossible to follow or learn.
2. Poor, very hard to understand.  Lecture was next to impossible to 
learn from.
3. Some material covered was advanced.  Too much out of class and 
assignments and projects.  Learning organic chemistry is the one thing I 
didn’t do in this course.  
4. I hated it.
5. E
6. (blank)

Student 174
1. Strong: literally daily excitement and opinions over material and 
ability to make real world connections.  Weak: lectures were very 
confusing, skipped around.
2. As a person, I liked him very much.  As a lecturer he was the worst I 
have ever had.
3. Course material didn’t follow a pattern.  Examinations didn’t 
asses course material.
4. Worst course, worst professor, worst experience.
5. D
6. 3.99

Student 175
1. He was very enthusiastic about the material.  Is writing on the board 
was hard to read, and not organized.
2. Lack of organization compared to others but funnier.
3. Group work and the relation of material to the real world were great.  
4. It was different and unique.
5. B
6. 3.3

Student 176
1. Strong: enthusiastic.  Weak: could not follow lecture.
2. The lecture of other is much easier to follow.
3. More examples in class.
4. This would be a B- class.
5. B
6. 3.0

Student 177
1. Dr. Glaser is very passionate about chemistry and explains it well.  
The website is awesome and schedule is well set up.  It would help to be 
a little more specific sometimes regarding what is important.  
2. Much more exciting, good use of visual aids.
3. Specify important points to commit to memory.
4. Better than many, it was never boring.
5. A
6. 4.0

Student 178
1. Fast moving lecture.  Maybe jumps around a bit, bring back notes so we 
can print before class.
2. Slightly below average.
3. Test were hard, maybe that wad just me.
4. I didn’t like it in comparison with others.
5. C
6. 3.0

Student 179
1. He needs more structured lectures, teaching the concepts instead of 
assuming we are graduate students.
2. Not very structures and doesn’t help teach the basic concepts.
3. Teach the class the way other teachers do, but keep CIITN.
4. (blank)
5. C
6. (blank)

Student 180
1. Strong: enthusiastic, knowledgeable.  Weak: organization
2. Good
3. Weak: no lab.  Strong: no math needed.
4. Poor
5. C
6. 3.0

Student 181
1. His involvement is awesome.  His lectures really make you listen and 
the only advice for him is to be louder for the students in the back.
2. Awesome!  So much better than any other I have had t Mizzou.
3. Grading improvement.  
4. This course was practical and well taught.
5. A
6. (blank)

Student 182
1. Needs better examples.  Tries to create interest.
2. He’s about the same
3. Too hard, didn’t learn anything.
4. Much more difficult.
5. E
6. 3.27

Student 183
1. The lectures seem to have random points, needs to flow well.
2. About average.
3. Quality of course was good.
4. This was my least favorite class.
5. C
6. 3.74

Student 184
1. Would move too fast and kind of go off o ban gents of reactions 
without explaining them.  Made good use of class time and seemed 
knowledgeable.
2. Moved faster and did not except as many questions.
3. Need more logical ideas in the textbook.
4. I learned a lot.
5. B
6. 3.88

Student 185
1. Strong: Obviously loved his subject, which made me want to learn.  
Weak: sometimes went to fast, slow down on more difficult problems.
2. More than average
3. Strong: material was interesting.  Weak: CIITN
4. Average to a little above average.
5. A
6. 3.97

Student 186
1. Very good at keeping class interesting and stimulating.  Doesn’t 
always discuss material essential to class.  More organized way of 
lecturing would be helpful.
2. Dr. Glaser is sometimes hard to follow because he jumps from topic to 
topic.
3. The course could have been organized better.  The CIITN project helped 
with applications of chemistry.
4. It was defiantly more interesting.
5. B
6. 2.9

Student 187
1. Organization of lectures.
2. I like other lecturers better due to organization.
3. (blank)
4. ok
5. C
6. 3.1

Student 188
1. Strong: Excellent knowledge of material.  Weak: Lectures are 
confusing.
2. (blank)
3. (blank)
4. (blank)
5. C
6. 3.8

Student 189
1. Very knowledgeable but a little hard to follow.
2. Same
3. Interesting but difficult
4. A bit more difficult.
5. B
6. 3.5

Student 190
1. Sometimes the lectures seemed kind of scattered, it was hard to relate 
everything that was being taught and hard to connect to it previous 
lectures.  I enjoyed discussing the CIITN.  He keeps class interesting 
and speaks loudly and clearly.  He draws everything on the board.
2. He has exceptional knowledge and class is more interesting than 
others, I don’t get bored, I stay attentive.
3. I really like the idea of the way the course is taught, but I feel as 
if some of the aspects would be better for a graduate level or at least a 
non-introductory level course.  
4. Better because it’s more interactive.
5. B
6. 3.86

Student 191
1. Overall he is a very good lecturer.  Writing a little larger on the 
board for people that are towards the back of the lecture hall.
2. He is very good and knowledgeable.
3. Maybe some problems could be assigned.
4. Much more difficult.
5. B
6. 3.4

Student 192
1. Strong: excellent in describing hard chemistry concepts using easier 
metaphors.  Weak: Organization of the course different from the textbook.  
It was somewhat confusing.
2. He was more enthusiastic than anyone else.
3. Vast material is covered in one semester, which makes it a little 
difficult to follow.  Discussion section might help.
4. Very different and new format.  It was interesting.
5. A
6. 3.5

Student 193
1. Leave your ego at the door.  Hard to follow.  Subject matter not 
clear, bad attitude.  I am not happy with Dr. Glaser at all.
2. The worst ever.
3. Good book.  CIITN was a waste of time.
4. The worst!
5. E
6. 2.5

Student 194
1. Enthusiastic and energetic.  Board drawings were difficult to see and 
could you draw them bigger or use PowerPoint.
2. Much better than the FS03 Chem 210 Professor.
3. Needs homework problems assigned from the book.  Course was 
interesting to attend because of the lecturer.
4. Much better than the FS03 Chem 210 Professor.
5. B
6. 3.3

Student 195
1. Strong feature are his knowledgeable of the material and weak features 
are the schedule changing frequently.
2. Overall, a pretty good teacher.
3. Course was well organized, had a variety of different ways you could 
learn chemistry incorporated.
4. It’s more difficult than most.
5. B
6. 3.4

Student 196
1. Strong: had a lot of knowledge on the subject.  Weak: did not teach 
well, seemed like he assumed we new the material each lecture and he just 
reviewed it.
2. Not my favorite
3. Weak: The Book SUCKS.  Hard to understand.  Strong: CIITN, helped us 
learn/
4. Worst one I have taken.
5. D
6. 2.9

Student 197
1. Glaser was enthusiastic about this class but there was no structure.  
Everything seemed “up in the air”
2. I didn’t learn as much as I would have hoped.  Lectures were hard 
to follow- just a bunch of reactions on the board.
3. The course was interesting and relevant.  I don’t think the course 
was well organized.
4. Difficulty was comparable but time commitments were outrageous.
5. B
6. 3.7

Student 198
1. He knows Chemistry very well, but I feel like I didn’t learn 
enough for 212 because of his style.
2. About the same.
3. Strong: Group work.  Weak: Too much time on assignments that 
aren’t helpful.
4. About the same.
5. D
6. (blank)

Student 199
1. Went very fast and jumped around.
2. Not as good, didn’t pay enough attention to students.
3. Make the test correspond to material and no an evaluation thing we 
don’t know.
4. Less focus on students learning.
5. C
6. 3.6

Student 200
1. Only problem is that sometimes he expects me to understand everything 
completely and if not then it’s our problem.  Just not clear enough.
2. Good lecturer but I’ve had better.
3. (blank)
4. Depended on the work to be distributed evenly but it never is.  
Everything has bias in it.
5. C
6. 3.0

Student 201
1. Fun- knows his chemistry.  Tough to follow when we get rushed because 
if you don’t get it we’ll just go on.
2. Just as fun.  Both smart. More good jokes in class.
3. A lot of information learned- little time to do a lot of group work- 
maybe give until Friday on test.
4. Much harder (text/homework) 
5. A
6. 3.75

Student 202
1. No strong features.  New professor.  I don’t know how he’s 
still teaching.  Avoided students questions.  Never really explains his 
noted.  No organization of lecture with the book.  Just horrible, he 
should be researching not teaching.
2. Worst professor I’ve ever had in my entire life.  He knows too 
much and couldn’t explain to the novice chemistry student.
3. This class needs a lab. The TA’s really teach us something if the 
professor doesn’t.
4. Horrible.
5. E
6. 3.79

Student 203
1. (blank)
2. the worst
3. The course tries to be different and good but it doesn’t happen.  
Instead we get an unorganized course.
4. The worst until now.
5. E
6. 4.0

Student 204
1. Sometimes I would get lost because he didn’t label what he was 
doing clearly.  He was understandable.
2. Pretty good.
3. Strong: difficult and builds character.  Weak: unfair, inconsistent, 
group work.
4. Not so hot.
5. C
6. 4.0

Student 205
1. Strong: Tired to make chemistry fun, came up with analogies I could 
remember.  Weak: lectures were informative, but never said what you were 
talking about until the end, which really confused me.
2. He was good.
3. Strong: very challenging, but double.  Weak: inconsistent grading, too 
much emphasis on group work.
4. It was hard.
5. D
6. 4.0

Student 206
1. (blank)
2. (blank)
3. (blank)
4. (blank)
5. (blank)
6. (blank)

Student 207
1. I learned nothing from this class.
2. He had no organization, could not follow and did not answer questions.
3. Get a book what helps with lecture.
4. Horrible.
5. E
6. 2.7

Student 208
1. Write more down, it’s hard to hear him clearly.
2. Very good, very enthusiastic.
3. Give weekly online quizzes to help boost scores.
4. Good
5. B
6. 3.2

Student 209
1. He is quiet and sometimes sloppy on the board.  A microphone would 
help out.  He appears to be very knowledgeable on the subject matter and 
very interested/excited to teach.
2. He seems to have less overall organization as far as test structure.  
I wish the class would have been more traditional.
3. The take home tests are setting too many people up to fail.  Most 
people don’t know the information at this point.
4. Slightly more difficult.  Very atypical in structure; stressful.
5. B
6. 4.0

Student 210
1. Seemed like what he wrote on the board was highly unorganized and not 
easy to follow.  I ended up coming out at lecture without comprehending 
much and held notes that made nonsense.
2. Not very good.
3. (blank)
4. Not very good.
5. D
6. 3.0

Student 211
1. He is very good teacher.  But his lectures were hard to follow and had 
hardly any organization in it.  His explanations were sometimes able to 
follow but not always.
2. He knew his subject matter; maybe to well because he took it far to 
the point were it was to much for a beginner class.
3. Good class needs more hands on stuff maybe more turn in assignments 
over somethings.  
4. Harder, less applications.
5. B
6. 3.57