PDA

View Full Version : 4e V&S Sucks



Erk
2008-10-23, 03:52 PM
Excited about the new edition, I rushed to the bookstore and picked up the full 2-book set of 4th edition. After looking it over, though, I have to say that 4e Vollhardt & Schore has completely ruined organic chemistry.

First of all, a bit of background. I was first introduced to pencil and paper organic chemistry in 1998, when I was in grade 11 at high school, but I wasn't very heavily into that scene. Still, I read some of the rulebooks and was pretty interested. In 2000, when I went to college, I got a lot more into it and even spent a few weekends studying with my friends, old skool: mountain dew, cheesies, and rulebooks everywhere. By second year, I was really into it and started studying 2e vollhardt&schore, sometimes more than twice a week. I was pretty excited when 3e came out at my school bookstore, and although I was a bit shocked at first by some of the changes they made - particularly to the Nuclear Magnetic Resonance rules (NMR analysis was my favourite class) - I grew into them pretty well.

All that changed with 4e V&S. I am not saying 3e was not flawed: organic chemistry has changed a lot since 1999, when 3e was first published, so I recognise the need for a new edition, but some of the changes they made were just plain unnecessary. For example, the new core rulebooks clearly lack detail as compared to 3e; I'm sure they've moved many of these rules (carbonyl functional groups, anyone?) into the Workbook, as a money-grab to force studiers to buy both books. I've not had a lot of time to read the entire rulebook yet, but I can already tell from the table of contents that there are some glaring omissions. Where is the section on Arrhenius acids and bases? Just because Bronsted-Lowry and Lewis acid/bases are more efficient ways of defining acidity is no reason to discard a time-honoured rule like that. We've been using the Arrhenius definition for years, and my study group still used it in some house rules during sessions.

Further, what is with the changes to all the mass spectrometry rules? I was comfortable with the way it was before. I don't see the need for this new "maldi" system, or "esi". RULE #1, Freeman Publishing: if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Despite my misgivings, my old study group and I got together for a few sessions with 4e. It was fun at first, but the old magic just isn't there. With all the changes, the new book practically reads like a biochemistry textbook. Everything has been made unnecessarily easy for newcomers, dumbing down the rules system I learned and watering down the very essence of organic chemistry until it is all but unrecognisable. Finally, every practice problem basically reads the same. Acid/base? Functional group? Stoichiometry? Analysis? It doesn't matter, when the features of the problem are just mixed-and-matched from the same basic concepts.

The new rules for V&S organic chem may be fine for some, but I for one will be sticking to my old 3rd edition textbook. I'm sure when the marketing response catches up to Freeman Publishing, and good old Vollhardt&Schore Organic Chemistry gives way to other systems that are not so video-game-inspired, they'll be singing a different tune.







DISCLAIMER: I don't actually own vollhardt & schore 4th edition, if it is even published yet. This article is parody. Blah blah.

Starbuck_II
2008-10-23, 03:55 PM
Excited about the new edition, I rushed to the bookstore and picked up the full 2-book set of 4th edition. After looking it over, though, I have to say that 4e Vollhardt & Schore has completely ruined organic chemistry.

First of all, a bit of background. I was first introduced to pencil and paper organic chemistry in 1998, when I was in grade 11 at high school, but I wasn't very heavily into that scene. Still, I read some of the rulebooks and was pretty interested. In 2000, when I went to college, I got a lot more into it and even spent a few weekends studying with my friends, old skool: mountain dew, cheesies, and rulebooks everywhere. By second year, I was really into it and started studying 2e vollhardt&schore, sometimes more than twice a week. I was pretty excited when 3e came out at my school bookstore, and although I was a bit shocked at first by some of the changes they made - particularly to the Nuclear Magnetic Resonance rules (NMR analysis was my favourite class) - I grew into them pretty well.

All that changed with 4e V&S. I am not saying 3e was not flawed: organic chemistry has changed a lot since 1999, when 3e was first published, so I recognise the need for a new edition, but some of the changes they made were just plain unnecessary. For example, the new core rulebooks clearly lack detail as compared to 3e; I'm sure they've moved many of these rules (carbonyl functional groups, anyone?) into the Workbook, as a money-grab to force studiers to buy both books. I've not had a lot of time to read the entire rulebook yet, but I can already tell from the table of contents that there are some glaring omissions. Where is the section on Arrhenius acids and bases? Just because Bronsted-Lowry and Lewis acid/bases are more efficient ways of defining acidity is no reason to discard a time-honoured rule like that. We've been using the Arrhenius definition for years, and my study group still used it in some house rules during sessions.

Further, what is with the changes to all the mass spectrometry rules? I was comfortable with the way it was before. I don't see the need for this new "maldi" system, or "esi". RULE #1, Freeman Publishing: if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Despite my misgivings, my old study group and I got together for a few sessions with 4e. It was fun at first, but the old magic just isn't there. With all the changes, the new book practically reads like a biochemistry textbook. Everything has been made unnecessarily easy for newcomers, dumbing down the rules system I learned and watering down the very essence of organic chemistry until it is all but unrecognisable. Finally, every practice problem basically reads the same. Acid/base? Functional group? Stoichiometry? Analysis? It doesn't matter, when the features of the problem are just mixed-and-matched from the same basic concepts.

The new rules for V&S organic chem may be fine for some, but I for one will be sticking to my old 3rd edition textbook. I'm sure when the marketing response catches up to Freeman Publishing, and good old Vollhardt&Schore Organic Chemistry gives way to other systems that are not so video-game-inspired, they'll be singing a different tune.







DISCLAIMER: I don't actually own vollhardt & schore 4th edition, if it is even published yet. This article is parody. Blah blah.

But don't forget to discuss the mechanism of substitution: Solvosis (Sn1) and Sn 2 mechanism.

Oh don't forget you are either left or right hand (Chiral): no ambidexterity like in the old days.

IuPac is similar to Thaco; both are wacko but IuPac never went away.

Morty
2008-10-23, 03:56 PM
So, this is basically yet another "People who don't like 4th edition are stupid because they don't agree with me" rant.

RPGuru1331
2008-10-23, 03:58 PM
This isn't funny in the comic forums either.

Erk
2008-10-23, 03:58 PM
So, this is basically yet another "People who don't like 4th edition are stupid because they don't agree with me" rant.

No, it's a "I noticed the textbook I was studying was 3e and wondered if there is ever a flamewar in textbook circles when the new edition comes out" parody article.

Ed:

But don't forget to discuss the mechanism of substitution: Solvosis (Sn1) and Sn 2 mechanism.

Oh don't forget you are either left or right hand (Chiral): no ambidexterity like in the old days.

IuPac is similar to Thaco; both are wacko but IuPac never went away.
Actually, I have to grudgingly admit I like what they did with the Nucleophilic Substitution mechanisms. The new electron attack mechanisms are a lot faster to run, and have all the detail of the old model. I will probably steal them as a house rule in my 3e sessions. But I agree with you on the chirality thing! Just because a few people couldn't memorise +/- rules they had to throw out the whole system!

(mind you, IRL I actually prefer structure-based chirality terminology, and IUPAC naming isn't so bad when you have had it drummed through your head.)

Morty
2008-10-23, 03:59 PM
No, it's a "I noticed the textbook I was studying was 3e and wondered if there is ever a flamewar in textbook circles when the new edition comes out" parody article.

Is it? Well, sorry for the misinterpretation then. Guess I shouldn't post at 11 o'clock.

Tengu_temp
2008-10-23, 03:59 PM
So, this is basically yet another "People who don't like 4th edition are stupid because they don't agree with me" rant.

Not that there are no people with such stance on the opposite side...

NephandiMan
2008-10-23, 04:06 PM
At first I thought, "Organic chem? What does that have to do with 4e?"

Then, somewhere in the third paragraph, I got the joke. Well-played, sir. Well-played. New textbook editions are a bitch, aren't they?

Erk
2008-10-23, 04:09 PM
At first I thought, "Organic chem? What does that have to do with 4e?"

Then, somewhere in the third paragraph, I got the joke. Well-played, sir. Well-played. New textbook editions are a bitch, aren't they?Whew, thanks. For a while there I was pouting, and thinking "well, I thought it was funny."

I'm sure in a few years when everyone is used to 4e, the entire organic chemistry community will look back on these flamewars and laugh.

Lord Herman
2008-10-23, 04:13 PM
I am amused.

Morty
2008-10-23, 04:13 PM
I'm sure in a few years when everyone is used to 4e, the entire organic chemistry community will look back on these flamewars and laugh.

Up until 5th edition comes out.

Green Bean
2008-10-23, 04:20 PM
3rd Edition? 4th Edition? I'll stick with my Classical Elements thankyouverymuch. Anything more than that is those greedy $cientists trying to line their pockets.

Erk
2008-10-23, 04:31 PM
3rd Edition? 4th Edition? I'll stick with my Classical Elements thankyouverymuch. Anything more than that is those greedy $cientists trying to line their pockets.

Ugh. I prefer a little more detail to my rules. With those older copies you basically have to run spectral analysis by fiat.

Lord Herman
2008-10-23, 04:33 PM
Remember when the textbooks used to come with those blank periodic tables you had to fill in with crayon? Good times, good times.

InaVegt
2008-10-23, 04:37 PM
Bah, who uses V&S? Unimaginative people who need rules for their chemistry. Real chemists don't need rules, they just do what they think they should do, achieving the end result in ways that cannot be done when following rules like V&S. Free form chemistry is where it's at.

Starbuck_II
2008-10-23, 04:47 PM
Whew, thanks. For a while there I was pouting, and thinking "well, I thought it was funny."

I'm sure in a few years when everyone is used to 4e, the entire organic chemistry community will look back on these flamewars and laugh.

It was funnier to me because I'm taking Organic now. Stuggling though.

Erk
2008-10-23, 04:56 PM
It was funnier to me because I'm taking Organic now. Stuggling though.

starting out in organic chem is hard and there is no real remedy for it but understanding the basics really, really well. And raw memorisation. I wish I could offer you better advice, but even with a degree in chemical biology I still have to study up on it every few years or I find my basic comprehension fading, making the later principles really hard.

Tough it out and study-study-study. Once you get past the initial hump (the activation energy of the course, if you will) it does get easier.

Starbuck_II
2008-10-23, 05:23 PM
starting out in organic chem is hard and there is no real remedy for it but understanding the basics really, really well. And raw memorisation. I wish I could offer you better advice, but even with a degree in chemical biology I still have to study up on it every few years or I find my basic comprehension fading, making the later principles really hard.

Tough it out and study-study-study. Once you get past the initial hump (the activation energy of the course, if you will) it does get easier.

I want a catalyst :smallbiggrin:

Ecalsneerg
2008-10-23, 06:25 PM
Bah, who uses V&S? Unimaginative people who need rules for their chemistry. Real chemists don't need rules, they just do what they think they should do, achieving the end result in ways that cannot be done when following rules like V&S. Free form chemistry is where it's at.

This is so true.

And possibly the reason for many mysterious happenings in my chemistry class. In the name of science!

OzymandiasVolt
2008-10-23, 08:51 PM
Heh, this is very entertaining. Nice one, Erk.

Mr.Bookworm
2008-10-23, 09:06 PM
http://th01.deviantart.com/fs20/300W/f/2007/264/9/6/2_thumbs_up_by_NestR.jpg

I laughed.

Though someone needs to make this game, now.

EvilElitest
2008-10-23, 09:21 PM
Its not a very good parody. Its just kinda making up another situation then just making a list of complaints that are somewhat valid, but lack any actual substance. It doesn't prove anything, except people who already agree with you find it funny because they don't understand the complaints in the first places. For example, if i made up a game, then made a fake rant about is new edition saying stuff like

"The game cuts out a lot of unnecessary and unneeded background in order to make more room for more rounded and balanced mechanics. The game focusses cuts out fluff and detail in order to allow the DMs to make up their own plots and story back grounds. The game is far more balanced and workable than the last edition, and because it cuts out the massively disorganized feats and skills, classes are simpler and easier to use. The game is far easier for newer players, and i'm glad it makes things more play worthy"

That isn't a parody, that is me cut and pasting a series of existing compliments. All your doing is writing down existing complaints and then presenting them wrong/badly, which makes it bad parody which is a tad bit insulting
from
EE

Jayabalard
2008-10-23, 09:23 PM
So, this is basically yet another "People who don't like 4th edition are stupid because they don't agree with me" rant.that does seem to be the case.

Mr.Bookworm
2008-10-23, 09:28 PM
that does seem to be the case.

:smallconfused:

He specifically said that was not what was intended at all earlier in the thread.

Also, EE, can you elaborate with examples?

EvilElitest
2008-10-23, 09:42 PM
OK, a parody would subtly mock the opposing view point. I could do a very effective parody of anti 4E complaints (don't ask until after i sleep however) by making the actual complaints against 4E seem silly. This doesn't do that. It just creates a situation that is very much alike to the 4E one, and inserts the complaints, but it feels very generic. You go through it and it is like he just put the complaints in through cut and paste, just writing down the generic version of some various complaints, then just left it at that. I mean, when i read it, if you pretend such a game exists, the joke complaints can almost seem valid and legit (that doesn't mean they are right) which isn't what a parody is suppose to do it is suppose to discredit and mock the complaints themselves, like "A modest proposal" does. This just lists complaints


It isn't a "Everybody who likes 4E i wrong" post by any means, i think M0rt needed some more sleep, but as a parody is doesn't do very well. I could do a pro 4E parody in the same style, and i wouldn't be making any point other than re writing why people like 4E. Take my last post, i only listed stuff, i didn't make any actual point in the parody

Its only insulting a tad bit because it is so generic, but that is obviously accidental.

from
EE

Mr.Bookworm
2008-10-23, 09:57 PM
:smallconfused:

He...

Isn't insulting 4E. He isn't insulting people who make complaints about 4E. He isn't insulting people who complain about people who complain about 4E.


No, it's a "I noticed the textbook I was studying was 3e and wondered if there is ever a flamewar in textbook circles when the new edition comes out" parody article.

EvilElitest
2008-10-23, 10:02 PM
:smallconfused:

He...

Isn't insulting 4E. He isn't insulting people who make complaints about 4E. He isn't insulting people who complain about people who complain about 4E.

yeah, i know, i never said he was insulting 4E. the parody is trying to remake the common complaints about 4E, but it does so badly. The parody kinda recreates the same events, but thats a metaphor more than a parody, the latter's purpose is to mock something.
from
EE

TheCheshireHat
2008-10-23, 10:59 PM
As a undergrad chemistry student, who used Volhardt's 3rd ed. till last year, I cannot express in words how funny this is.

Also: This (http://www.amazon.com/Organic-Chemistry-Fourth-Structure-Function/dp/0716743744/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1224820642&sr=1-2):smallbiggrin:

Asbestos
2008-10-23, 11:05 PM
Its not a very good parody. Its just kinda making up another situation then just making a list of complaints that are somewhat valid, but lack any actual substance. It doesn't prove anything, except people who already agree with you find it funny because they don't understand the complaints in the first places.

Dude, I believe you're reading just a bit too much into this. Would you be happier if he had said "this article is meant to be humorous"? I seriously doubt that Erk is trying to "prove" anything. Its a joke. Oh, and I don't think its helping your case at all by saying that the only people that find it funny are those that "don't understand the complaints in the first place" In fact, that's pretty damn rude.


------------------------------------------------

Does the new Organic Chemistry require us to use models? (was mine the only class where people would bring in the molecular modeling kits for tests?)

NephandiMan
2008-10-23, 11:11 PM
As a undergrad chemistry student, who used Volhardt's 3rd ed. till last year, I cannot express in words how funny this is.

Also: This (http://www.amazon.com/Organic-Chemistry-Fourth-Structure-Function/dp/0716743744/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1224820642&sr=1-2):smallbiggrin:

One hundred thirty-six bucks? Pfft, for that I'd better get the full damn set of core textbooks, including the optional rules for using psionics in chemistry.

BTW, anyone see the sneak peek of the Atomic Ionizer PrC? What were they thinking? *shakes head*

JaxGaret
2008-10-23, 11:35 PM
In the name of science!

http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/4042/forsciencegn5.gif

10characters

Roderick_BR
2008-10-24, 07:47 AM
Can organic chemistry "rules" even be changed? Would it make things go boom, or make someone sick? :smalltongue:

And yeah, I know.

EvilElitest
2008-10-24, 08:24 AM
Dude, I believe you're reading just a bit too much into this. Would you be happier if he had said "this article is meant to be humorous"? I seriously doubt that Erk is trying to "prove" anything. Its a joke. Oh, and I don't think its helping your case at all by saying that the only people that find it funny are those that "don't understand the complaints in the first place" In fact, that's pretty damn rude.



1) When the complaints are only show and generic, thats rude, to. If it is a parody, as it is described, it needs to be mocking something
"A literary or artistic work that imitates the characteristic style of an author or a work for comic effect or ridicule."
as a parody, its not good, and somewhat rude. As a parody the idea is great, i could totally see somebody really using this device to mock both sides horribly, but as it is its just listing complaints. You could make a really really good parody with this
2) If it was a general article, i wouldn't say so, because it just meant to be humorous generally. If you cut the definition of Parody, which requires mockery, then is just kinda "Hey, thats funny"
3) I'm no expert, but i think that there might actually be arguments over different editions of chem text books
from
EE

Lord Tataraus
2008-10-24, 08:42 AM
There are arguments over textbook editions, but mostly over which authors. My dad reviews science textbooks as a 3rd party for my local school system and he got pretty pissed off because they choose one textbook just because it had a cd with it. Those arguments can get really heated, and then there is the "Intelligent Design" blasphemy that keeps butting in trying to look all official, but that's not a discussion for this forum.

Also, I agree with EE, this wasn't really parody.

EvilElitest
2008-10-24, 08:58 AM
thanks

Through are the text book arguments really that bad? I know my school got some new ones, and they seem a little bias to me
from
EE

Erk
2008-10-24, 09:27 AM
Those saying it's not a parody are not entirely incorrect: I should have said satire, since it doesn't target a specific work.

Deconstruction (warning: painfully unfunny. Feel free to ignore)

First I'd like to defend myself by pointing out that I in no way case the 3e v&s fan as an idiot, a fool, or a buffoon. I have no idea why 3e d&d proponents are so offended. The satirical author seems to be quite intelligent and is a capable organic chemist, he just doesn't like change and takes the alterations to his favourite text very seriously. I think I succeeded in my satirical goal (whether or not it is funny is entirely subjective).

Also, it occurs to me I should have made this about Structure & Function (S&F) not Vollhardt and Schore. Ah well,too late.

I could just as easily have written this from the perspective of a 4e V&S fan decrying the earlier editions as being too clunky, too heavy, hard to carry to class, obfuscating, and useless, and even though he learned chem in 2e and 3e v&s he couldn't imagine now how he'd gone to so much effort... but frankly,
1) I couldn't find any strong characteristic patterns to pro-4e arguments in order to write a satire, while pro-3e arguments tend to follow a structure similar to what I have used, and
2) Frankly it just doesn't make interesting writing to write about someone who is very happy with a new change. Writing from the POV of someone who dislikes the change immediately adds conflict, while the opposite does not.

Nevertheless, if there was any goal to this satire - and I should point out that I wrote it mainly because I found the idea of 3e/4e arguments as applied to organic chemistry funny, not because I thought there was a deep cultural statement to be made - it was "these arguments about editions are ridiculous". From the perspective of neither edition. Had it been fun to write it as a 4e v&s studier raving about how much better it was, then that's what this thread would be about.

Whew. Now that that is done with:







Does the new Organic Chemistry require us to use models? (was mine the only class where people would bring in the molecular modeling kits for tests?)Yes, and worse, Freeman Publishing is still selling their models in grab-bags. You buy a kit based on what group of the table it is in, and you get a random assortment of atoms from that group. I've got 4 carbons and 83 silicons thanks to their stupid "collector's item" sales technique. Worse yet, half the time I get elements that don't even exist in regular Organic Chem! I have 8 uraniums, 5 yttriums, 12 radons, and 2 wonderfloniums!

On the bright side, I have heard they will be putting out new higher quality kits with three atoms each, for four times the price. Only of organic-series atoms (CNOH and sometimes P and S) but it's an improvement. You get three randomly selected atoms per pack, but you can see what's in the pack. Nice. I still don't know how I'm going to get all the carbons I need for my average low-level Alkane Combustion encounter, I'll probably wind up going through a third party as I've always done.

Lord Tataraus
2008-10-24, 10:14 AM
thanks

Through are the text book arguments really that bad? I know my school got some new ones, and they seem a little bias to me
from
EE

Simply, yes they can be, probably not on a normal bias but some arguments can get really bad. It also depends on how you select your books, who reviews them, how they are involved in the school system, etc. lot's of factors. In my dad's case, our school system requires a 3rd party with sufficient training (i.e. Ph.D. or possibly Masters level degree) within the area or a closely related area. My dad is a college professor with a Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering so they give him physics/general science and math books. He gets frustrated and pissed because he is far more qualified then the actual teachers, but when they say "I want a CD" and my dad says "about 25% of the answers in the back of this math book are wrong and the language too high of a reading level for 5th graders" the school board sides with the teachers and gives the 5th graders books that cost $150 instead of $100 because it comes with a shiny CD in the back that they will probably never use. That's usually the arguments I hear and that's when you go to your school board and yell at them for being complete idiots. And then of course, this year the principle of the High School quit halfway through the year to run for chairman of the school board and he is an absolute ******* who doesn't care about the kids.
[/rant]

Darkmatter
2008-10-24, 02:51 PM
I agree - 4e V&S is a bit disappointing. I fell in love with the old 3e, and I just can't seem to get into the new edition. The fact that I'd have to shell out hundreds of dollars more isn't that appealing either. However, you should see the great things they're doing over at Atkins and DePaula. A&D is a different base rule system - a "Physical" rather than "Organic" approach to chemistry, and a lot of people accustomed to the old V&S find it a bit more complex to start with. However, once it's mastered, I find that it is a much more satisfying system all around. It requires a bit more math than the V&S, but you wind up with a lot fewer hand-waving explanations of problem rules, which leads to fewer arguments around the table.

Erk
2008-10-24, 03:13 PM
I agree - 4e V&S is a bit disappointing. I fell in love with the old 3e, and I just can't seem to get into the new edition. The fact that I'd have to shell out hundreds of dollars more isn't that appealing either. However, you should see the great things they're doing over at Atkins and DePaula. A&D is a different base rule system - a "Physical" rather than "Organic" approach to chemistry, and a lot of people accustomed to the old V&S find it a bit more complex to start with. However, once it's mastered, I find that it is a much more satisfying system all around. It requires a bit more math than the V&S, but you wind up with a lot fewer hand-waving explanations of problem rules, which leads to fewer arguments around the table.
The thing is, I don't want a different system. I want to stick with organic chemistry, not switch over to something so different. Unfortunately, I don't feel I've been left with much of a choice. If I don't want my science to stagnate, I guess I'll have to start trying out new textbooks.