© 2000 Rainer Glaser. All rights reserved.

The University of Missouri at Columbia
Chemistry 212 - Organic Chemistry - Winter Semester 2000

Teaching Evaluations - Overall Rating 3.3/4.0

Criteria of evaluation WS00
Organization and preparation of lectures and discussions 3.71 3.62 3.75 3.40
Instructor's enthusiasm for the subject matter 3.83 3.69 3.75 3.74
Helpfulness in answering questions and clarifying points 3.23 3.15 3.67 2.70
Ability to lecture in a manner which is easily followed 2.97 2.92 3.33 2.37
Ability to stimulate interest in the subject 3.06 2.77 3.00 2.59
Overall rating of the instructor 3.34 3.15 3.75 2.86
Your rating of how much you have learned 2.92 2.62 2.50 2.43
Overall rating of the course 2.95 2.85 2.90 2.55
Overall rating 3.25 3.10 3.33 2.83

[a] Chemistry 212 in FS96 was a 3-credit-hour 3h lecture. [b] Chemistry 212 in WS00 is a 5-credit-hour course consisting of a 3h-lecture, a 1h lab lecture and a 4h-laboratory (2 credit hours) [c] Chemistry 300 in WS00 is a 3-credit-hour course consisting of a 3h-lecture. [d] Chemistry 301 in WS00 is a 2-credit-hour course consisting of a 1h-lecture and a 4h-laboratory.

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


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

1. very interested in making sure the students are learning, goes out
   of his way to meet the needs of students.
2. outstanding --- made organic chemistry seem fun and important,     
   tests initially hard
3. course goes very quickly, hard to stay caught up with problems
4. course itself is hard but was better than 210.
5. A  

1. Don't go so fast, slow let people be able to write and understand, not
   just copy the slides (so they can ask questions in lecture)
2. assumed we know more than we actually did.  You can't do that, not
   everyone has had the same background
3. need partners in the lab, too much info, not enough time, I felt very
5. C
6. 2.8

1. strong: Enthusiastic, good-natured, speaks clearly, interested
   in whether the students learn.  
2. He is the best chem teacher I have had while at MU  
3. Make tests resemble problems in book more closely.  
4. It was tough, but I learned a lot, and I had to go to lecture.  
5. A  
6. 3.1  

1. I like that he tries to know names of students - he is very easy to
   talk to and personable.  By far one of my favorite profs. at this
2. He is enthusiastic and genuinely cares if his students learn the
3. need more help problems to work through before the test.  
4. Both organics I have taken I have learned a tremendous amount.  
5. A  
6. 3.1  

1. Good use of internet, maybe get notes up a little sooner.
   (Probably won't be a problem from now on since this was first semester)  
2. Expects much—good thorough teacher though  
3. lots of material  
5. B  
6. 3.9  

1. less overheads, more writing it out himself on the chalkboard
2. more enthusiastic than some
3. the class should be curved.  Extra credit shouldn't have to be given
   out to raise the average.
5. C
6. 3.1

1. Strong pts:  enthusiasm;  weak pts:  need to do a better job at
   somehow unify the ideas and not focusing on the details.  
2. good
3. too much stuff on the course.  It needs to be broken up into 3 courses
   of organic chem
5. C
6. 3.9

1. web/email use, test topics were extremely helpful  
2. He's funny - that makes it easier to come to class—lots of enthusiasm
4. was about the same with other 5 cr. hr. courses.
5. A

1. Notes on the web is a good idea.  Eager to help.
2. Much more friendly, can easily get help
3. Project was helpful.  Some material went rather fast.  
4. Class was better than with other chem classes.  
5. B
6. 3.2

1. Need to post all chapter notes at one time instead of bit by bit.  We
   are expected to do too much!  With the project and news items and vis.
   centers and all the material and lab and problems this class is way too
2. He's very good, very knowledgeable and caring and nice.  Likes to
   make use of the web and email lists. which is commendable.  
3. Reduce the amount of material covered?  Take out all the excessive
   lab write-ups.
5. C
6. 3.9

1. Explanations are sometimes convoluted, PLEASE get the notes on the web
   more than one hour before class.  
2. Has more enthusiasm, uses more practical real world examples.
3. Material was often not covered in a logical manner, difficult to know
   what would be on exams.
4. About the same.
5. B
6. 4.0

1. Covers too much material and doesn't have notes up early enough.  The
   notes are good though.
2. He gets off of the topic and wastes a lot of lecture time chatting
   with students.
3. Good textbook but EXPENSIVE!  
4. Better than 210.
5. B
6. 3.5

1. Did very well in helping us to understand which info was relevant and
   what was not.  Very open to student opinion.
2. Best I've had yet.
3. I've learned more in this course than any other.
5. A
6. 3.61

1. Notes on the web strong point.  Improve clarifying test matter.
2. very good but past lecturers were awful.  
3. labs are too long.
5. C
6. 2.6

4. Okay.
5. B
6. 3.2

1. Once we had our third test it was much better because it was what we
   learned and not over all of the NEWS ITEM THINGS.  
2. He was good.  Sometimes went off the subject matter.
3. It was fine.
4. It was good.
5. B
6. 3.89

1. Sometimes he gets a bit over out heads, but he does try very hard to
   explain himself.  He taught the class very logically and I learned 
   A LOT!  
2. Dr. Glaser really tried to get involved with the class and was very
   good at keeping us informed of everything.
3. Sometimes it felt like there was too much material but we're in
   college and need to get over it!
4. Good.
5. A
6. 3.33

1. well organized, too fast   
2. better than Pulley  
3. too much synthesis  
4. more difficult than 210  
5. B
6. 3.3

1. good enthusiasm, sometimes too fast.
2. good
3. tests are too hard.
4. Okay
5. C  
6. 3.08

1. Good overheads, good structure
2. very knowledgeable
3. A lot of chem for one course
4. Better than other chem courses
5. A
6. 3.85

1. I really liked the group projects.  It was the first one I have
   had to do in college and it really helped me understand some material.
2. He is actually on of the best I have had.  Especially in the
   enthusiasm department.  He obviously loves chemistry.
4. This is a very good course, I've learned a lot.
5. B
6. 2.6

1. I do not follow overheads well, especially when mechanisms are not
   shown.  A lot of variation in ways to learn the material.
2. was enthusiastic wanted to see people learn seemed to know his
3. The extra credit.  Come on am I in junior high or at University?
5. B
6. 3.46

1. He is so funny when he gets really excited about chem.  He sometimes
   gets discouraged, but seems to want to help us learn.
2. He is the best chem. prof. I've had here.   Two of my previous
   teachers can't teach anymore, so if he is allowed to teach again,
   that's a really good sign.
3. Lab took too long in the beginning.  It really helped me understand
   lecture when lab is connected with it.
4. Good --- but hard work!
5. B
6. 2.7

1. Dr. Glaser is a very good lecturer.  I really would not suggest
   any changes.
2. I like the notes before hand.  It allows you to pay more attention to
   the lecturer and you are not constantly writing.
3. A lot of material in a really short time.  Really can't be helped.
   Could have a lab discussion every week prior to lab but have discussion
   one week before lab as to not rush Monday labs.
4. This is pretty much the same as other courses.
5. B
6. 2.9

1. very enthusiastic, really tries to explain so everyone understands.
2. very good, much more interesting than most, easy to follow
3. pace a little fast - especially on some of more difficult subjects,
   third test very fair, but format of second test is confusing
4. this is a very difficult course, but instructor helps to make
   material more interesting.
5. B
6. 4.0

1. enthusiasm was good, having the notes/overheads on the internet make I
   easier to follow the lecture, tended to go too quickly at times.
2. overall, a fairly good teacher compared with others I've had.
3. First two tests were extremely confusing, group project did not work well.
4. much harder.
5. B
6. 3.9

2. I had Dr. Glaser for 210 as well.
3. This class as well as every other chemistry class I've had it seems
   like we speed through the material.  Then what I understood in class is
   jumbled up at home.  Slowdown.  
4. About the same as 210.
5. C
6. 3.1

1. I don't like the notes on the web, I would rather have it written on
   the board.   It would help to have more mechanisms shown.  
2. He is excited about Chemistry, but it seems we learn a lot of
   information that we don't need.
3. There is too much info for the class, and I think that there should be
   no lab week of the tests.
4. This course is too time demanding.
5. C
6. 3.6

1. Strong: He cares about the students and the subject matter. 
   Weak: His tests are very difficult and complicated.  At the end of the 
   year, he was reasonable, but it was very difficult most of the
   semester.  He needs to put the notes up at least the night before 
   lecture.  Not everyone can get time in time for lecture when he puts
   them up an hour before class.  Some people have 8 ams or cannot get to
   a computer in time.
2. Could be more straight forward about what he wants us to learn.
4. The level of difficulty was high.
5. B
6. 3.8

1. Strong:  his ability to answer question in person, in review and in
2. He has been one of the best lecturers that I have had in a long
3. Weak:  the grading system. (i.e. no curve), Strong:  on-line notes.
4. This course had been challenging as compared to others, but
5. B
6. 3.499

1. Strong:  does a good job utilizing the internet.  He needs to find
   a way to convince other professors to do the same.  
2. Weakness:  unfortunately, doing notes that are on the web don't force
   me to write a  lot during class.
3. Good class
4. !Bueno!
5. A
6. 3.4

1. The notes on the web are great.  Group projects was a good way to
   get the class involved in learning the material.  Sometimes notes
   were posted a little late (later than expected at least).
2. He was much more attentive to how much the students learned.  He
   was more flexible to working with the students needs and desires.  
3. Strong:  group projects, class notes, lab!!  Weak:  None
4. Learned more than in other classes.
5. A
6. 3.93

1. The overheads are sometimes hard to follow.  It is very helpful to see
   reactions written on the board.  very dedicated to teaching.---
   that's great.  
2. Lecturer is ok.  I learn better when I actually see everything being
   written out.
3. Lab is helpful in understanding lecture material.
6. 3.25

1. Organization level is extremely high; however, interest level
   was quite low.
2. When compared to others, this lecturer is ok.
3. I liked the idea of having a lab with the lecture; lab was quite
   helpful and helped a lot with lecture material.
4. I like 210 much better.
5. C
6. 4.0

1. He was good at making the topics relate to the real world.
   Sometimes the notes were not easy to follow.
2. Compared to other science professors, he was very good.   He
   was very enthusiastic about his work.
3. The lab should have been done in pairs, not individually.  Group work
   helped you to meet people.
4. I learned a lot compared to others.
5. A 
6. 3.9

1. Notes are too wordy!!!  I have to read them a few times before I
   figure out the point trying to be made.  Keep it simple, and to the
   point, especially with reactions.
2. Very enthusiastic, but needs to slow down at time.  Also, assume the
   class knows less.
3. Too much material!!!  
4. Hard
5. C
6. 3.3

1. Very excited about subject manner.  The peer reviews were a BAD idea,
   because the grading was poor and unfair.
2. About the same
3. Too much material was covered.
4. Harder
5. C
6. 3.407

1. Keep us involved even though if is a huge lecture—much enthusiasm and
2. Honestly, the best, most enthusiastic, fair one I've had.  
3. Explain more how to use the technology better.  i.e.
   Visualization centers where stuff is on web.
4. Difficult but fair. 
5. B
6. 3.2

1. Strong --- pre-print out of notes so that students can pay attention
   to what is being said.
2. More energy and enthusiasm in teaching
3. Strong: shows how Chemistry is working today and how much of it is
   in everyday life.  Weak:  
4. It's easier to follow and he's not boring like other science teachers.
5. A 
6. 2.5

1. loud clear speaker, enthusiastic, caring
2. He has been one of my better chemistry lecturers
3. the material is too much in such a short time.
4. Very, very, very time consuming.  
5. C
6. 2.9

1. He definitely enjoys what he teaches.  The already printed notes are
   convenient and gives the class more of an opportunity to listen.
2. He teaches better than most I have had and emphasizes strong points
   very well.  Reviews are better.
3. I hate using the computer so much.  The tests ended up much more
   reasonable then they began.
4. Much better for how hard it is.
5. B
6. 3.56

1. class goes too fast, more time would be nice, reviews by instructor
   VERY helpful (TA not helpful) too many reagents per test.  
2. He cares if you learn, uses web a lot -- too much expected for 1
   Chapter, VC, read chapter, problems, notes, news item, weblinks (time
   not long enough to do all this per chapter)
3. see # 1&2.
4  Fine; like how he cares if you learn.
5. B
6. 3.800

1. The lecture notes were on the web which was great because I didn't
   have to try to take down all the notes in class, so I could listen to
   the explanation.  Sometimes, the lecture went too fast.
5. A
6. 3.887

5. C
6. 3.0

1. Excellent lectures with well-structured notes.
2. Possibly better explanations than other Chemistry professors.  
3. Regular homework assignment required to be done possibly worth a few
   points would be so helpful!
5. A
6. 3.8

1. Put notes on the web earlier!  E-mail was very good!  Overall:
   pretty awesome  
2. Glaser cared about the students and kept us all up to date with
   email.  That was very nice.
3. Too much info!
4. The project I did not like!  Too much focus on computers.   Not enough 
   on Chemistry.  I'd rather write a paper.
5. B
6. 3.0

1. Don't assume we know anything.  I read the book and do the problems
   but still have no idea what you are talking about!
2. You skip the "why or mechanism" of the reaction.  If I don't know why
   or how it works, then it is nothing but memorization.  
3. Curve, this is HARD STUFF!!
5. C
6. 2.5

1. Strong:  Does a good job of making material interesting to
   students, and is enthusiastic.  Weak:  Maybe should go into more
   detail when explaining stuff such as reaction mechanisms.
2. Compares very favorably.
3. Strong:  Informative, lab correlated to lecture.  Weak:  Peer reviews
   were kind've hard to handle fairly
4. Compares well.
5. A
6. 3.21

1. Awake at 9 in the morning.  Glaser has a deeper
   understanding of Chemistry and life in general than do most
5. B
6. 3.6

1. very well organized, enthusiastic, obviously puts a lot of time into
   the class, very good about answering tons of email.
2. one of the best I have ever had --- his class is obviously a top
   priority for him.  
3. The huge amount of material covered --- hard to sort out what is
   actually important.
4. Much more time required.  
5. B
6. 3.9

1. Very entertaining in lecture - keeps interest at a high level.
   Very personable with students.
2. The best I've taken ... cares that you learn and
   understand what is happening in the class.
3. Maybe a little too much information to cover in one semester for a 3
   hour class ... the lab portion takes a lot of time.
4. good—I've learned a lot!!
5. A-
6. 3.25 

1. The notes on the web help a lot.  A standard testing format would
2. I have learned the most in this class because of the enthusiasm
   Glaser has for the subject.  
5. B
6. 3.1

1. Strong:  Good lecture and willing to explain something even if it cuts
   into lesson plan.  Posted notes helpful.  Weak:  HATE the peer review
   of prospects.  Points taken off because of the ignorance of peers.  Ex:
   States that our project seemed more like a physics project because we
   discussed OLED's.
2. Above Average.
3. Strong:          Weak:  See above weak.
4. Above average.
5. A
6. 3.0

1. Glaser is very enthusiastic, and he makes this course more
2. The notes on the overheads and available on the web is very helpful
   --- better than board notes for this course.  
3. The tests are very difficult because they hardly seem to be from the
   book.  The general principals are good, but it is very hard to study
   the news items.
4. This course did not (thankfully) have as many mechanisms to memorize
   as Chem 210, but I think that the content was harder.
5. B
6. 3.2

1. Strong --- Very enthusiastic, obviously has superior knowledge.
   Thanks for the bonus points!  Weak:  Went too quickly.  Expected you to
   learn vast amounts of highly detailed info ... our test scores showed
   that this didn't go so well.  Slow Down!!  Although Dr. Glaser
   was an enthused teacher, I was constantly confused in lecture!!  
2. Much more enthused.  Should go slower though, much faster than other
3. Strong:  Lab grades save you!  Weak:  Hated CSP project.  Some of our
   peers obviously put no time into reading the assignment and thus they
   graded in a way that I think was unfair.  I think this is reflected in
   the lower scores of some rather good projects.  I think that Dr. Glaser
   should actually grade them or at least have the final say in the grade.  
4. Hardest course I ever took.  Way more work than just a five
   hour course.
5. B
6. 3.78

1. (a) The notes were not available until minutes before the class.  (b)
   Way too much emphasis on web-based material --- it took time away from
   checking the homework.  (c) His refusal to change the grading curve
   lead us to spend time and effort getting "extra points" rather than
   learning the material.  (d) The group project was a complete waste of
   time.  (e) He is rude during office hours.  (f) His lectures are not
   clear or easy to follow.  (g) We only covered 9 chapters.
2. He is one of the worst professors I have ever had; his inflexibility
   and smugness were difficult to overlook.  I have had much better
   professors in the same department and in other departments.  
3. No labs during exam week.  Start earlier and end later with the labs
   to avoid this.  
4. I have learned almost nothing; it wasn't challenging or interesting.  
5. D  
6. 4.0  

1. He uses "tools" effectively and he speaks clearly and with
   enthusiasm. However, I don't feel I have been challenged in this
   course.  While I think it admirable to eliminate "competition" with A's
   being 85%, I would much rather get a 79% A and have worked for it!  I
   do feel that Dr. Glaser cares about his students which is evident by
   his mid-semester "switch". Compared with other profs he is easy.  The
   extra credit is nice, but too big a cushion.  
3. The course material is fine.
4. The subject matter should be challenging, but when memorization is
   emphasized, it's easy.
5. B
6. 3.9

1. Good voice, easy to understand, easy to follow as long as notes are
   provided.  Covers a lot of information in a short amount of time,
   sometimes it is difficult to digest.
2. very good
3. Work and expectations are made clear.  Perhaps move a little
   more slowly and break this course down further.
4. This is an extremely difficult course.
5. A
6. 3.5

1. The third test was a lot better than the first two.  
2. To get a C in this class requires more effort and knowledge than an
   A in most classes, including physics.
3. Covers a lot of material, it should count as a 15 hr class so we
   wouldn't have to take other classes at the same time.
4. It's a lot harder than anything else.  
5. B
6. 3.5

1. Dr. Glaser is very enthusiastic and very knowledgeable about this
   subject matter.
2. He is one of the best lecturers I have had at MU.
3. Did not like group projects being graded by other students.  Felt our
   group deserved a better grade than it received.
5. B
6. 3.6

1. Goes much too fast and has terrible handwriting.  But does
   great reviews.
2. Not as effective and organized as Chem 210 professor.  
3. Course covers too much too quickly with little transition.  The
   book is pretty good though.
4. Hard, but not ridiculously so.  Fair.  Expected at this level.
5. C
6. 3.9

1. Good lecturer but it might be a little bit better if he could use a
   microphone so people could hear him way in the back.  Otherwise good!  
2. Better than most science lecturers because you can tell he is happy
   to be teaching us.
3. Bottomline, this class is the hardest I've taken here at MU.  Maybe
   the grade should be based even more on group work instead of individual
   hard test.  
4. Harder, but good.
5. C
6. 3.25

1. Sometimes he was hard to follow and talked a little over our heads.
2. I enjoyed coming to class, the lecture itself was entertaining and I
   was able to learn things as well.
3. Course definitely teaches discipline, but also is very stressful and
   has the potential to really bring the GPA down because it is a 5 hour 
4. I believe this course has been the most difficult course I have taken
   so far.  Most of the people in  here are not going to continue in
   Chemistry.  This is just a requirement.  The workload that was required
   for this course was too much for full-time students.  In order for us
   to do well in this class and actually learn something, we would have
   had to devote many hours and many of us did not have those hours to
5. C
6. 3.53

1. Overhead is well structured, but very generalized.  Enthusiasm is
   strong as well as knowledge of subject matter. 
2. Very fair in comparison to others.  Do not like grading
   concept --- everyone still competes for grades (evident in CSP).  
3. Semester was very full --- extra curriculum (news item, CSP, etc) was
   great, but untested lecture notes could have been skipped.
4. Great deal of information.
5. B
6. 3.8

1. Strong:  Enthusiastic.  Weak:  High expectations (we aren't all chem
2. Compared to my previous organic Chem prof (Pulley), Glaser is a
   great improvement.
3. Don't update the notes 30 minutes to 1 hour before class!  Some of us
   commute from outside Columbia.
4. Course-work is difficult, and doesn't coincide well with laboratory
5. B
6. 3.4

1. Sometimes it is hard to understand him.  He really knows the
   chemistry, but expects us to know it as soon as we enter the room.
2. He makes more sense than others at the University.
3. I think the course tried to cover too much material in one
   semester.  The material was very difficult for me.
4. This class was very hard, but so were many others that I've taken.
5. B
6. 3.0

1. Strongest features are enthusiasm and knowledge of subject.
   Weaker features are very few in number.  --- Maybe make it a bit
   clearer what has to be known for tests, although that has been
2. Much better in the area of concern for welfare of students.  
3. Strong point is the emphasis on synthesis.  Lab is useful.  Perhaps
   more use of computers in teaching. 
4. Very challenging, and therefore more rewarding.
5. A
6. 3.9

1. The website and notes are very helpful so we can follow along
   and not write everything down.
2. More approachable and personable than my other professors.  Dr.
   Glaser is very easy to talk to and really seems to care if we are
3. We were not very clear about how the tests would be --- the third test
   was much more clear.  Also, a recitation instead of lecture before lab
   would help immensely.  
4. Considering I hate chemistry but I enjoyed this course, I'd say it
   was very good!  
5. A
6. 3.3

1. Strong:  Very organized, very intelligent, very willing
   to help.  Weak:  a little to internet-dependant for class,
   overly difficult tests.  
2. Good, quite good.  Some expectations were a bit high for a class so 
3. Strong:  covers good material, needs a discussion before
   lab.  Weak:  requires too much memorization vs. learning.
4. Difficult, challenging, but helpful.  Still needs a lab discussion in
   a small group-recitation.
5. B
6. 3.2

1. He assumes too much and doesn't make sure every student is mastering
   material, only a select few (who visit his office hours regularly).
2. He's about average.
3. WEAK:  The lab is an absolutely useless part of the course; we don't
   learn anything new or explore at all.
5. C
6. 3.0

1. Strong:  He listens to the problems students have and really tries
   to solve the problems and work with student complaints, HE OBVIOUSLY
   CARES.  Weak:  The overheads were excellent, but he taught better
   when he used the chalk board, I was able to follow along more.
2. He genuinely cares if the students learn and are happy and tries to
   do something to help, so he's better than the previous.
3. Strong:  Interesting and the lab made it worthwhile.  Weak:  too much
   material without any regard to students' abilities to learn and engage
4. Hard
5. B and C both circled.
6. 3.575

1. Dr. Glaser is very flexible, he adjusts his teaching style to the
   needs of the class.  However, the class would be better served if
   he were to lecture with a little less complexity, in more secular
   terms, ect.
2. Generally comparable, perhaps more enthusiastic, less realistic.
3. Course is predictable and no issue can be taken.  
4. Very similar to most science classes.  
5. B  
6. 3.3  

1. Strong features:  knowledge of material, enthusiasm, incorporation of
   various technology to enhance learning.  Weak features:  fast pace,
   test structure sometimes difficult to follow.
2. This lecturer is much more interesting and enthusiastic about the
   material; sincerely concerned about student's performance.
3. Difficult material; lab certianly helped me to understand specific
   procedures better.
4. Required a kind of learning approach and study ethic I have not been
   accustomed to.
5. B
6. 3.6

1. Strength:  Provides clear focus for test problems.  Excellent
   review sessions.  Weakness:  Tries to do a little too much information
   which is always worded on boring (?) tests.  Possibly eliminate it to
   begin with a concentrate on the most important info.  
2. Very organized!  Express more interest in successful learning.
3. I enjoyed the news items /Vis Group project needs tinkering.
4. Good
5. A and B are both circled.
6. 3.84

1. Strong:  Dr. Glaser knew the material exceptionally and wanted
   every student to do well.  Weakness:  He seemed to have higher
   expectations of the students abilities.
2. His teaching style was different than others.  I feel slides take
   away by allow for the material to be covered faster.
3. Too much material for 3 tests and 1 final.  Possibly a fourth test
   would make it benefical.
4. Organic is a timeconsuming course that is imcomparable to any other
   except possible any upper level chem or biochem.
5. B
6. 3.25

1. Strong point:  very thorough notes.  Weak point:  Maybe do more
   problems using the mechanisms.
2. Lecturer was always prepared and easy to follow.  
3. Strong:  notes on internet were good.  Weak:  Did not enjoy the peer
   grading on projects.
4. This course was challenging but fair.
5. A and B are both circled.
6. 4.0

1. Strength:  uses the internet in many ways --- very helpful; use of
   web to post notes so we do not have to write, we can listen.  Weakness:
   does not clarify pts., briefly explains material and expects us to
   spend an unrealistic amount of time outside of class.  
2. he is comparable—but more involved and enthusiastic
3. course is well planned.
4. fine
5. B
6. 3.3

1. Glaser is great as far as his enthusiasm of chemistry.   Very
   encouraging.  But, he forgets that we have other demanding classes that
   require commitment.  His isn't the only one.
3. Too much to do.  I have other courses to worry about.
4. It's organic chemistry.  It's pretty *!@# tough.
5. B
6. 3.3

1. the lectures were easy to follow, and the way the web notes were done
   I liked, but it would be nice if the notes were available maybe a day
   earlier than usual on the web.  
2. Easier to understand, more enthusiasm.  Very good.  
3. I think the tests emphasize memorization too much over application.  
4. Really hard.  
5. A  
6. 3.4  

1. He had great enthusiasm but could not spark any interest.
2. He needs to explain the harder points of the lecture/chapter more.
3. The tests need to be curved and need to cover the strong points of the
   chapter only.  Cut out the "chemistry in the news" for the tests.
5. B
6. 2.9

1. Gives specific examples in the lecture notes sometimes those very
   similar to the questions given on exams.  
2. I would say compared to all of my chem course this course was much
   more organized.  
3. Too much information in too short period of time.  If we are really to
   learn and understand this material, we need more time.  
4. Much more difficult in course content.
5. C
6. 2.97

1. This professor is Great!!!  He's enthusiastic, he's funny, and he's
   VERY helpful.  He actually cares whether or not his students are
   faring well in his class (a novel concept) and he always wants to make
   sure we understand the subject matter.  He gave review sessions, bonus
   points, ect.  All in all, an A++ professor.  
2. If only I had a professor like this in 210, I may have fared better in
3. My only complaint is that we often had TOO MUCH information we had to
4. The best chemistry class I've ever taken.
5. A
6. 3.4

1. Weak feature:  When exam comes closer, you go over the slides more
   faster and cover more material.
2. Others are way better than this one.
3. Teach the easiest chapter in least time and hardest chapter in enough
4. Not good.
5. D
6. 3.2

1. You waste too much time with chem in the news and group projects the
   class is bad enough as it is.
2. The class was not very exciting R.G. could not keep our interest.
3. Strong feature was that he made extra credit available.
4. Poor.
5. D
6. 3.1

1. Notes need to be more detailed.  You assume we know more than we
   really do sometimes.  Showing complete mechanisms with arrow pushing
   helps us to understand better and we don't have to memorize as much.
   The way you approached the third test was wonderful.  You made it
   more clear about what we needed to study.
2. Dr. Glaser got better as the semester went on.  His lecturing
   ability was OK, but I had to teach a lot of stuff to myself.  
3. Course itself was OK, lab ended up being fairly helpful.
4. Not one of the best, but OK.
5. B
6. 4.896  [??]

1. Strong:  Attention to questions, Flexibility, Step by step
   Explanation.  Weak:
2. More enjoyable (much more enthusiasm) and effective (use of slides
   helped) than Pulley (210)
3. Strong:  Diverse learning media (internet helped).  Weak:  Too much
   focus on memorization.
4. Very difficult and time-consuming.
5. A
6. 4.0

1. Very organized --- the notes off the web made things go more smoothly.
   Lots of web material --- almost too much for me to get or
2. Class notes were easier to understand and follow.  
4. I learned a lot, which made it more interesting than most
5. A

1. Strong:  is attentive to the student.  Good at being around after
   class and with email.  Weak:  presentation was often confusing.
   Poor at answering why something goes a certain way.  
2. Very poor, other science teachers are good at explaining why and
   keeping the high-load lecture as clear as possible.  I had to spend a
   lot of time teaching myself and seeking explainations at other sources.
4. fine
5. B
6. 3.7

1. Enthusiastic, well prepared but better to have notes available sooner
   on the web.
2. Comparable
3. With an absolute grading scale, all the tests should be more like
   the third test with the questions broken down.  
4. More info given, gone over very quickly
5. C
6. 3.3

1. The lecturer is very enthusiastic and organized the only problem seems
   to be the exams and the structure of the exams (demonstrates excellent
   knowledge of subject matter).
2. The lecturer is helpful in explaining information but exams are much
   more difficult than exams in the same subject.
3. The strong feature is the overhead notes and the labs but the weak
   features are with exam length and difficulty level (however the changed
   format of the third exam was excellent).
4. I have learned average information however could not grasp concepts
   clearly compared to other classes.
5. C
6. 3.78

1. Dr. Glaser was enthusiastic, friendly, and knowledgeable.  I felt very
   comfortable coming to class, and I enjoyed his teaching style.
   Learning, however, requires an involvement with the material.  Using
   pre-printed notes doesn't do that.  Teaching, even if it is at a slower
   pace, is more effective when my ears and hands have to work together.
   It forces me to think about the material during lecture.  
2. Dr. Glaser shows a great interest in our ability to learn.  He wants
   his students to succeed and it shows.
5. B
6. 3.8

1. Dr. Glaser does an excellent job bringing real world situations
   into the classroom.  However, his lectures are often hard to follow
   and he needs to emphasize important aspects better.
2. Comparing Dr. Glaser to Dr. Pulley, the 210 professor, Pulley did an
   excellent job with synthesis.  He set aside all reactions and gave
   purpose for each.  Dr. Glaser needs to try this.
3. Very weak for the CSP project.  Goals not clearly defined and [peer]
   grading was terrible.
4. Course was consistent with most science classes at this university.
5. B
6. 3.67  

1. Weak:  using overheads that are preprinted is a terrible idea.  This
   makes your lectures even more boring than your lecturing style alone.
   You don't explain the information very well.  I felt the lectures were
   a waste of my time.
2. I was much more pleased with Dr. Pulley in 210.  He explained things
   much better in lectures.
3. I liked the course and information covered.  I liked the content.  The
   labs were helpful.
5. B
6. 3.75

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

1. Sometimes he is hard to understand.
2. He has a strong knowledge of chemistry.
3. This course was taught completely different than his 210 course.  It
   was hard to adjust to the new teaching style.
5. B

1. Dr. Glaser is very personable and an organized lecturer.  However, I
   cannot stay focused or interested in his lectures.  He goes quickly
   and is sometimes difficult to understand.
2. Not bad, I like him even if I really don't enjoy the class.
3. Too much information!  The tests are very difficult.  The 2nd test was
   impossible and unfair.
5. B
6. 3.9

1. Although his notes are very organized, he spends a lot of time on
   early stuff and goes too fast on later stuff right before the test.
   The CSP's are a good idea.
2. He is comparable.
3. This course will probably be better for those who have lab.
4. The course is not very good without the lab.
5. C
6. 3.1

1. Used notes/overhead very well.  Make notes more accessible.  Weren't
   able to get notes until the morning of the class.
3. Tests were very specific and difficult.
5. C
6. 3.3

3. Being able to download notes allowed me to focus on the lecture more
   and not be caught up in note-taking.
5. B
6. 2.14

5.  C
6.  3.2

1. Sometimes R. Glaser's accent was tough to follow.  Dr. Glaser was
   enthusiastic, helpful, and accomondating when we spoke up 'cause the
   tests were so difficult.
2. Good, sometimes hard to follow because he jumps around so much.
3. Course was good and I learned a lot!
4. Good
5. B
6. 2.38

1. Strong:  very clear speaking, easy-going, and open approachable
2. He's one of the chemistry teachers that is easier to approach and
   ask questions (even when you feel your questions are stupid).
3. A book with so many mistakes in it!  A cheaper book?
4. I enjoy organic, so there is no comparision.
5. B
6. 3.1

1. Notes were helpful, and the CSP project helped us to see the
   diversity in real-life applications.
2. very concerned that we understood the material.
3. the lab may have enforced some topics.
5. B
6. 3.8

1. He was willing to change the format of the test, that was great!  So
   in a way he already improved!
2. Dr. Glaser was definitely in the top two.  I have Dr. Gayou
   (Biology) as number one.
3. The on-line notes were great.  I didn't enjoy the collaborative
   semester projects though, especially when some of the students graded
4. Very good.
5. A
6. 3.5

1. He is well involved and educated in material he is teaching.  His
   tests are fair but difficult and he helps his students.  Very involved.
2. This class helped me learn much more than any General Chemistry
   class.  It also wasn't here to make me flunk out of school.
5. A
6. 3.0

1. hard to read handwriting sometimes.  Sometimes goes too fast, makes
   it hard to follow.
2. overheads and notes available prior to class really helps.
3. condense chapters?  too much info
4. Tough! lots of info to learn in a short time.
5. B
6. 3.4

1. Strong:  Overheads, notes on the web, answers questions, clear speech.
2. Ranks up there with the best.
3. I think that Chemistry 300 students need to be graded differently 
   because we don't have the lab to boost our grade.  A lot of my friends
   that the lab with lecture talk about how they only need 40 pts on the
   final to pass the class.  Where I will need to pull a much higher grade
   to pass.
5. C
6. 3.3

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

2. Chemistry is boring, no professor has ever made it interesting.
3. Very hard tests, labs were good but some of the procedures difficult
   to follow.
4. I don't like chemistry.
5. C
6. 3.0

2. Very interesting.
5. A
6. 3.3

3. Course is very organized and thorough not much improvement
   needed if any.
4. Good.
5. A and B are circled.
6. 3.0

4. More memorization required.
5. B
6. 3.5

1. Seems more interested in our understanding.
5. C
6. 3.33