4e V&S Sucks

[Erk]

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]

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]

So, this is basically yet another "People who don't like 4th edition are stupid because they don't agree with me" rant.

[RPGuru1331]

This isn't funny in the comic forums either.

[Erk]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I am amused.

[Morty]

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]

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]

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]

Remember when the textbooks used to come with those blank periodic tables you had to fill in with crayon? Good times, good times.

[InaVegt]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Ecalsneerg]

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]

Heh, this is very entertaining. Nice one, Erk.

[Mr.Bookworm]

I laughed.

Though someone needs to make this game, now.

[EvilElitest]

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]

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]

that does seem to be the case.

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

Also, EE, can you elaborate with examples?

[EvilElitest]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Asbestos]

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]

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

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*