OChem

Nobody is crying about it but you, kiddo.

>>8926559
Ochem isn't hard but lmao at thinking orgo = nomenclature

ochem = best chem
nomeclature = worst part of it

>>8926559
>nomenclature
>it's fun as fuck

You might have autism

>>8926559
Nomeclature is like the first thing you do in ochem lmao, get into nucleophilic substitution and elimination and take some old exams and you can start see where people start bitching about it

>>8926849
Not him but aromatic reactions were kind of like fun puzzles to me

>>8926989
nucleophilic substitution and elemination reactions are also among the first things you do in orgo
>aromatic reactions
OP was talking nomeclature, mechanisms are alright

>>8927071
I should say SN/E is when you start to get into the essence of ochem and when people start to struggle with the class

>>8926559
>in my free time and it's fun
• no lab
• no assignment
• no quiz
• no test
• no final exam
• no grade
those things take the fun out, geddit?

>>8927102
• no faggot classmates
ruined 75% of my time desu

>>8927102
Lab is fun

>>8926559
I don't know. Quite liked OChem during my first year. Labs were a bit stressful, but I liked drawing mechanisms.

File: lions.gif (650KB, 350x204px) Image search: [Google]

650KB, 350x204px

synthesis problems are basically IQ tests

brainlet premeds get butt blasted because it's not memorization. funnily enough they then blame themselves for not being able to memorize every synthesis problem beforehand and complain that ochem is all memorization.

>>8926559
Only pre-med brainlets complain about ochem, probably because they never had to take inorganic (not gchem) or physical chemistry

>>8927180
But uhhhh

They are memorization problems.

Because synthesis and retrosynthesis REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE.

>>8926559
agree with op. just learn how electrons move around and you can figure most mechanisms out for the most part. A lot of people recommended the organic chemistry second nature textbook (forgot what it was called) and it helped me when I was taking ochem at least in ochem1

>>8926559
>>8927077
>>8927180
But isn't it just essentially finding out where the electrons are? I never had difficulty in my organic chemistry classes.

>>8926559
>nomenclature
lmao
Learn organic chemistry, compare nature and chemist in the synthesis of chemicals, this is fun

>>8927071
The first things you learn is nomenclature, resonance etc.. Then you can learn mecanism and properties

>>8926559

Chemistry, especially organic chemistry is subhuman compared to physics. At least physical chemistry and a lot of inorganic chemistry aligns with physics... organic chemistry has so much pseudoscience. Reaction mechanisms is just pure pseudoscience, do you faggots think that's really how electron transfer occurs in reality? And then ochem brainlets say... but but it's a good enough fiction to represent what really happens... no it fucking isn't.

Reaction mechanisms are a fucking nightmare. And wait until you get onto organic photochemistry, then you'll realize how subhuman and inferior chemistry really is. You will finally understand how filthy and false reaction mechanisms are... they're just completely made up. Mechanistic organic photochemistry is simply the most mind bogglingly retarded and made up nonsense in science.

Organic chemistry, like biology, has too many variables to be on the same "plane" as a fundamental science like physics... meaning that as a science it works on a completely differently level with completely different rules for its own level. Which is fine... but biology doesn't pretend to be a fundamental science like ochem... ochem just has retarded made up rules all throughout

Now I know some retards will complain I'm wrong because I can't communicate very well, but the fundamental substance of my argument is correct because I've fuckign studied this filthy subhuman subject. Organic chemistry is a pseudoscience!

>>8928049
I never really had an issue with ochem either, but I get why brainlets struggle with the amount of rules

File: IMG_1792.jpg (36KB, 540x960px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 540x960px

>>8926559
Organic chemistry is literally the easiest chemistry. Nomenclature is a no brainer, and mechanisms fall out logically if you know what the fuck you're doing.
>>8928427
There there you spastic retard, no one's looking down on you for failing one of the easiest chemistry courses there is.

>>8928427
>Ochem just has retarded made up rules all throughout
Any Examples?

>but but it's a good enough fiction to represent what really happens... no it fucking isn't.
So shit like markovnikoff"s rule can't predict majority of products?
Do you have model that predicts reaction better than organic mechanisms?

>>8928427
angry brainlet

>>8928427
>Being this buttblasted about failing OChem

>>8926559
lol, he's probably learning the community college, superficial ochem they give nutritionists. They don't need to learn about mechanisms or stereochemistry.

>>8928427
pretty sure organic chemistry rules can predict the outcome organic reactions.

Are you stupid?

>>8926559
People these days mass email professors that their intro to physical chem has too much algebra and that it's not what they signed up for. Universities these days are full of high school kids who don't want to be there and cannot do algebra with their 13 years of 'education'. I hope the post-secondary college debt bubble pops with both admin and humanities departments receiving huge budget cuts and going through reform at minimum.

>>8926559
Usually the difficulty comes with how much material is presented within a small time-span. It's not just "This is butadiene, here's how to use it in Diels Alder" for two weeks and then finally you move onto Wittig or HWE reactions and just do them once and forget them.

It's more like you get half the time to absorb the concepts, and then you just have to recognize how everything reacts under novel conditions, and even apply it to Synthesis. Other times you need to propose good mechanisms, which rely on understanding of not just electronegativity, but whether or not your mechanism break aromaticity or if there's some orbital or strain arguments that push you one way or another.

People complain about it because it's something you need to study to appreciate. It's not terribly difficult, but you do have to know what you're doing. I studied quite a lot during my year of Orgo, and honestly I think it was the best experience of my undergrad career.

>>8928427
You seem really mad about your B-

>>8926559

They're crying about it because they're pre-meds. They're pre-meds because they say they're pre-meds; there really isn't any barrier to entry to being a pre-med. That said, they usually have passed gen chem and calc 1 so they're not completely hopeless by the time they're taking ochem.

For the ones who end up getting into med school, most still really aren't as interested the concepts and material as they are in passing the classes. Combine that with the fact that much of the material in ochem is beyond what they'll actually need in med school (relatively marginal chemistry knowledge is needed to plow through biochemistry that's taught in med school), of course they're going to complain. They don't like science, nor even care much about it.

>>8928451
>>8930499
>>8929790
>>8931487
>>8931544
He's right though. All organic reaction mechanisms are really just HOMO-LUMO transitions determined by orbital energy levels and symmetry compatibility. A physical or computational chemist could determine what products will form in any reaction by performing quantum chemical calculations and studying where the electron density and molecular orbitals are. Organic chemistry really is for plebeians who cant do math

>>8927732
not rly

if you can remember like ten general reaction archetypes you can get an A in sophomore orgo

>>8933527
A transition state isn't a HOMO-LUMO transition you fucking shitheel

>>8933625
True, I should have just said organic reactions. The arrow pushing mechanisms are pointless anyway when you can just use DFT calculations to model the actual reaction scheme which includes the transition state.

>>8932293
can confirm

t. premed

>>8933965
I agree. Synthesis is pointless. Why do a reaction that takes a day, when you could do a calculation that takes a week?

>>8933965
>do DFT forever to obviate side reactions
>do DFT forever to account for big catalysts accurately
>never actually run reaction

That's the least efficient way to accomplish reaction discovery/invention. Moreover, DFT is still not powerful enough to be a standalone mechanistic probe.

>>8933965
The mechanisms qualitatively describe electron movements that can be calculated out in detail. You could as well complain about structural formulas because they dont mathematically describe all parameters for all involved particles. Or about force arrow diagrams in physics because they dont quantum physically describe every single particle the physical body is composed of. Or about pretty much everything in thermodynamics.