Molecular Biology · Chemistry
In addition to two midterms, Arias's half had you do several homework assignments, mostly reading a journal article and answering some questions about it. Manley's half consisted of just a midterm and a partially cumulative final (from his half of the class).
3 midterms (2 Jia, 1 Manley) and a final (Manley). Midterms are non-cumulative, final is cumulative only for Manley's section.
minimal. Optional problem sets (not very helpful). A midterm and a final.
Poorly worded problem sets every week, midterm and final.
4 exams...2 for songtao and 2 for prywes....all weighted the same. Homework probably factors about 5% of grade.
Hands down the worst professor I've yet to have at Barnard or Columbia.
The class was divided as usual - the first half of the class covered DNA, and was taught by an adjunct (Professor Arias). The second half covered RNA, and was taught by Professor Manley. Arias's half was organized and structured pretty well - the homework assignments helped a lot with reinforcing the stuff learned in class and there were a lot of tie-ins with current research in the field. However, the execution was pretty poor - for all his enthusiasm and helpfulness, Arias was honestly a pretty poor lecturer, and the slides could be pretty boring or pointless at times. Manley's half seemed to be the complete opposite - his lectures were clear and excellent, but most of his exams involved heavy rote memorization (some questions were along the lines of "Describe the function of the enzymes whocaresase and dontrememberase"), and research articles were relegated to presentations by the TAs on the last day of class that left a lot to be desired (I'm pretty sure the majority of people in the class couldn't answer the article questions on the final). In addition, while Arias had a kind of animated enthusiasm about him, Manley's style of lecturing was a little monotone and slightly dry - "measured doses of enthusiasm," as friend of mine in the class put it.
Jia teaches the first half of Molecular Bio, and it's generally regarded as the crappy half. It's not totally his fault; you spend more time learning about chromatin than anyone should ever have to. But it's mostly his fault, because he's a really dry, hard-to-understand lecturer. He'll often inadequately explain a concept, get a question about it, and then give the same poor explanation. His slides are also remarkably unhelpful, even if you take notes on them. His midterms are a pain - you have to be super specific in your answers or you'll get tons of points off. He asks lots of "design an experiment" questions, and since he always looks for one specific answer it's hard to get these right. Oh, and don't bother trying to argue for points back in office hours, because he won't budge. He curves pretty generously though, so stay a couple of points above average and you'll probably end up with an A-range grade.
This was her first year teaching molecular bio, so I will give her some leeway for that. And surely, Prives knows her stuff as a researcher. However, she did not do a very good job of explaining the material on her slides. Actually, it's not quite accurate to call them her slides, since she just re-used Carol Lin's slides (the prof who used to teach mol. bio) for most of the course. Since they were not her slides, she sometimes did not know the significance of one slide or another, and when they'd come up, she'd look confused and then just move on. In general, she didn't do a very great job of explaining the more complicated concepts. The big upshot was the textbook. Which was awesome, and extremely straightforward and clear (which Prives was not). I studied the book for hours, and then referenced it with her notes, and only then understood what she was trying to say in lecture. I think our TA made our tests, and it wasn't very difficult, as long as you read the book and understood it. If you tried to study from class notes alone, you might be a bit lost.
Pretty much anyone can teach a molecular biology class. Just look at the textbook, make some PPslides, and regurgitate. But to be a good MB professor takes something extra - a unique insight into the field, an ability to introduce details as part of broader concepts, or maybe just enthusiasm. One thing is for sure, Mrs. Lin does not have that "something extra." She has managed to turn lecture into nothing more than a pointless formality. I have yet to learn one thing, to be given one insight, that I could not have read directly out of a textbook. Beyond this, she is just ANNOYING. She's smug, she has no sense of humor, and she tries to show that she has some kind of expertise by making horrendously banal comments about biology and the nature of research. If you have any sort of intellectual interest in molecular biology, this is not the teacher for you.