Jacob Schaefer

Great prof, but you need to keep up with readings because he will keep going forward even if you don't!

2/18/2013

He's a tough teacher, and very dry. He's brilliant and sometimes that makes it difficult to understand him, but he's also perfectly willing to help and once he warms up he's very fun to talk to. If you're not REALLY interested in chemistry, don't take a class with Schaefer, because he'll leave you in the dust; if you like chemistry you'll be fine.

6/6/2011

The text book is seldom used (and expensive). Also he has a huge interest in irrelevant science history (seriously).

11/21/2010

Just as other people say, Schaefer is back to Gen-Chem. Is that a good move? Probably not. He is to smart and bored for a 101 class. Neither him nor the students have the energy to deal with it at 9AM.

11/21/2010

Schaefer may be smart, but he does not know how to teach or communicate with his students. There is no connection between topics and he makes soooo many mistakes. I also stopped going, and am now in the Loomis lecture. Now he is a great professor. Take Loomis if he teaches it again.

11/11/2010

This is the first time in 17 years that Schaefer has taught Gen Chem...and it really shows. He obviously knows his stuff, but talks in an incomprehensible monotone and uses chemical jargon that even TA's can't decipher. Like many others, I stopped going to his lectures after the first exam. I started going to Loomis's class which really helped

10/13/2010

Nice guy, dry (funny!) sense of humor. While it is clear that he cares that the class learn the material, his lectures can at times be unclear, with the main points being difficult to discern. While the course material is very difficult, his expectations are almost always reasonable.

12/27/2005

Material will be hard regardless of who teaches it. Schaefer was a decent teacher for PChem, however. He did a great job at the end of summarizing/outlining what we had learned (a good idea that not too many profs seem to do). Could have used more "forecasting" and told us a general overview of what we were about to cover, however.Sense of humor

12/11/2005

This material is too hard to have a dry, monotone lecturer. Schaefer should retire. He seems tired of teaching and I don't think he cares if we get the material. Loomis filled in for a couple of lectures and wow, he is night & day better. I bet Loomis is hard, but you would learn a lot more.

11/17/2005

great course overall. 2 criticisms: he emphasizes intuition but then makes u mem. some eqns. he can speak with monotone and it's hard to discern what's most imptIthe big pic) if you aren't already familiar with the material. clear and well taught though. a great prof and guy! exams are fair.

2/24/2005

Dry sense of humor and an ok guy. But, I did not learn a thing in there and got an A. I know his course has a lot less work than Loomis', but I would rather do more work and learn the material. Bring back Loomis. Schaefer should stick with NMR

1/8/2005

Great guy that makes great jokes. Makes lots of mistakes but is always willing to be corrected. Quizzes and tests are tough, but if you study the recommeded problems, you'll do fine.

12/31/2004

He should have notes from the textbook rather than some other books, but otherwise he's the greatest chem prof. after Woooley. He's funny, interesting and cares for his students. Don't dream of working in his lab.. no way he'll accept you. On the other hand he does chat with anybody very humbly.

12/25/2004

Schaef's the man- didnt do well at all on the tests, ended up with a B. Dry sense of humor makes for unexpectedly humorous parts of lecture. Good prof...material is hogwash though. Seems humble for a man who invented C-13 NMR, one time even showed us his lab in help session. Highly recommended.

12/22/2004

He's one of the most interesting chemistry professors especially because he teaches you the way things were discovered instead of just teaching the book like Frey does.

12/20/2004