We are significantly changing both our course and lab curriculum. One of our goals is to break down barriers between inorganic, organic and biochemistry by treating similar topics in each at the same time rather than in three different courses. For example, one of the lab courses focuses on the use of different types of chromatography used in the three fields.
Here's a short question to ponder for an April Friday afternoon.
Consider the dimethylthiocarbamate ligand (dtc, structure shown on p. 328 of Miessler & Tarr 4th edition), which can coordinate to metals in a bidentate fashion through both sulfur atoms. Why, on the other hand, does a ligand like oxalate coordinate through only one oxygen of the carboxylate resonance pair? (Oxalate is bidentate, but only because it has two carboxylate groups.)
I was wondering how many folks include basic coordination chemistry in their General Chemistry course? Perhaps I will put together a poll on this topic. I used to teach coordination chemistry in Gen Chem, but it has since been removed in favor of more organic chemistry (eek!) that is more relevant for our contextual themes for the fall semester. Since I teach a 200-level (2nd year) inorganic course, I do not miss it too much in Gen Chem. I know that I will still have a chance to sink early inorganic hooks into our students. But it does mean that some of our students, most notably