This article is an opinion editorial and written by a BYU student who is not Universe staff.
CHEM 105 is a hard class. The concepts are not exceptionally difficult when compared to mid-level STEM classes, but the class itself is a beast.
Each week, CHEM 105 consists of three lectures, six homework assignments (one to two hours each), two recitation sessions (not for homework), and a lab completed on the student’s time. Exams add whatever time is necessary to prepare. In a normal week, this shakes out to 17-20 hours of chemistry for the average student.
The syllabus states, “CHEM 105 requires 17-21 hours/week in a fall/winter semester.” Our instructors said the same. 20 hours per week in a four credit class is about five hours per week, per credit hour. That is a 60% increase over the typical three hours per week per credit hour (see university credit hour policy).
About three hours of work per credit hour each week is what’s necessary to balance a full-time schedule with the other demands of life. If the rest of university followed the chemistry department standard, students would need to spend ~60 hours per week on coursework to qualify for federal student aid. By maintaining this ratio, the chemistry department is saying either 1) they are the only ones doing things right and the rest of the university is not, or 2) their material is the only course worthy of exception to the norm.
This is not a new phenomenon. An informal poll of professors in my department confirmed that CHEM 105 was the same 10, 20, even 30 years ago. Has their pedagogy not improved in 30 years? Given that CHEM 105 has been taught by an unbroken chain of PhD’s back to the time of Moses, it is highly unlikely that no one has thought of a better way to teach the material effectively and reduce the workload. Surely, this must be intentional.
When I brought these concerns up with the department, they first said that “CHEM 105 is not a weeder course.” But, when pressed about the inflated workload, they said “lots of people try out for the football team, but they can’t all make it.” This makes no sense. The purpose of the football team is not to teach people how to play football. Standards are needed to help students grow, but if you (the one who sets the standards) believe they’re meant to dictate “who makes the team,” your standards are intended to weed students out. You can’t have it both ways. You cannot be student-centric and also want to weed students out.
The day before I wrote this letter, my wife and I attended a campus event where BYU’s academic vice president Keith Vorkink joked:
“I came to BYU thinking I would go to medical school, but it was CHEM 105 that made me decide against it.”
The whole room chuckled, because we all know people with the same story. Dr. Vorkink stopped pursuing medicine and later went into economics. This scenario, often without the subsequent PhD, plays out every semester in CHEM 105.
I acknowledge that weeder courses are sometimes necessary for highly competitive programs. Not everyone would thrive in academia or medicine, and the last thing we want is a student set up for failure. However, introductory chemistry is not the appropriate time to weed those students out. Many are still unsure of what they want to study. Before my mission, I had no idea what I was doing. CHEM 105 would have been a terrible introduction to a field which I now adore.
There are multiple freshmen in my own section who have changed their career path because of the workload of CHEM 105. That could represent dozens of talented students dissuaded from pursuing a STEM degree every semester. At a time when Latter-day Saints have been commissioned to bring the testimony of Christ to every field, why is this barrier acceptable? Time after time, CHEM 105 is a freshman’s first, and often last, STEM course. I’m sure the Marriott School is very grateful for the chemistry department.
Furthermore, CHEM 105 is an entirely outward-facing course: no chemistry major takes 105. Why the chemistry department feels they have the responsibility to determine “who can make it” in programs entirely outside of their department is a mystery. In fact, other departments have repeatedly asked that they change CHEM 105, yet they do not.
So, what’s the deal? Hundreds of chemistry departments across the nation have figured this out, as have other departments within BYU. Why can’t ours? Is it something about national rankings? Is it an attitude of superiority or elitism? Who knows. What I do know is that CHEM 105 should fit within about 12 hours of work per week for the average student, both in and outside of class. If that is impossible, it should not be listed as a four credit class.
I am doing quite well in CHEM 105, but it sure makes life a lot harder. Time I should be spending on my research or with my new wife must be spent on chemistry homework. I am not the exception. It’s time we come down from the ivory tower and be honest. Chemistry is inherently awesome and beautiful — what a potentially wonderful medium to inspire lifelong learning rather than push students out.
*No AI was used in the preparation of this article.