She taught directly out of the book and didn't explain things in even remotely scientific terms. She actually didn't explain anything. The whole class was a bunch of "This attacks here, and then this attacks here, and then this attacks here, and then this falls off. Any questions?" And of course there weren't any because it's pretty straight-forward when you don't have to actually understand it. So if you like memorization, great, you're love her. If you like hearing about electronegativity and pKa and all those other reasons WHY reactions happen, then take Merlic instead. Yes, her exams are a lot easier, but because of that there's pretty much no partial credit and the curves are really high. Also she curves based on a C+, though I'm not sure that's uncommon. So just make sure you're two standard deviations better than your peers before you take her class. She has a lot of energy, which was really amusing, but overall I got very little from the class.

Maynard, in short, is not a very effective professor. She follows the book faithfully and does not provide examples of her own to enlighten the class on certain reactions and mechanisms. When asked about why something happens, her most common answer is, "Because it is," or some form of that. She will also pause to talk about her polymer chemistry research. Sometimes it seems like she'd rather be researching instead of standing in that room lecturing to 200 students. These anecdotes come out of nowhere and take time away from the actual learning process. All in all, not so great. The two days when Merlic substituted were most definitely the best days, and I don't mind saying this. I learned the Wittig reaction more than any other reaction in the class.

The first midterm tests exclusively on spectroscopy. Due to the fact Maynard didn't give partial credit, the scores were really low (average around 60). The second midterm was much easier (average around 75). The final was relatively difficult, and if you didn't keep a straight head, you would have had a difficult time.

There are better professors out there. Try them instead.

P.S. I also want to riff a bit on the Chemistry department at UCLA. Which organic chemistry course teaches SN1/2 E1/2 AFTER alkene/alkyne reactions? O_O

By far THE WORST TEACHER I had ever had at UCLA. I took her class because I trusted the rating of the idiots who said "she is fair... She only test what she covers..." Awww shut the *&*(( up you morans. She was horrible. the average for the second midterm was like 40. For the final 107/200. How the F%#$T is that what she covered you idiots. This crazy woman is a typical UCLA faculty. She is there to do research not to teach. I sent her couple eamils regarding a mistake in grading my paper, her response was, well nothing. She ignored my email by sending a general email saying that I recieved too many emails and since I'm busy can't answer them. The grades are what they are. AVOID THIS B*&$*

Maynard is definitely a better professor than I expected (in comparison with some of the previous reviews on Bruinwalk). Her exams are pretty straightforward and she does give decent partial credit on problems (especially synthesis). She gives practice exam material for both the midterms and the final - and they're all pretty doable. Her lectures follow very closely to the book, so if you have trouble understanding her in lecture, you can just read the book. One issue I had with her lectures is that she jumps around a lot - she doesn't really label everything clearly and sometimes the notes don't make a lot of sense. But overall, she's a decent professor!

I liked Professor Maynard!
She always taught with a smile and that was nice. she did try to learn a lot of her student's names but always got the same few people confused haha.

Her tests are hard. On a scale of 1-10 with 10 being hardest, I would rate her an 8-ish? It really depends on if you can see what you need to do right off the bat. Cuz for the mechanisms and synthesis, you can loose up to 15-20 points each if you can't see how to solve it. Her first midterm was like that.. but I managed to b.s. my way through and it worked o_o; (average = low 50s) Second midterm was easier, probably because the first midterm average sucked.. (average = mid 60s). Final exam averaged 120/200.. all generally pretty low scored, but the standard deviation was very big, meaning that the tests are very doable if you can see the tricks.

Study reactions very hard! Remember all the little exceptions and stuff. they will show up.

i would recommend you take her.

I wonder why some bad comments are here. I can give you guys very objective evaluation.

Personality & teaching style
She is an energetic & hardwarking instructor who even gave feedback survey and tried to apply students' opinions after the first midterm. Yes, her lectures are based on the textbook, which means the class will be very easy if you read the textbook and do the example questions from there. Yes, if you ask her for more examples outside from the textbook during her lecture, she will give you.Some complains here include that she does not thoroughly go over the concept like electronegativity, pKa.. but you know, they are explained in the textbook, and textbook reading is your homework (she assigns).

Exam & grading
First of all, 10% of your grade is quizes, which are the same (completely same) with HW questions. If you do the HW, free 10%.
For her exams, yes it seems she does not give you much partial credits (Note that this does not mean she never gives partial credits. Actually, she does give partial credits as I got like 15/20 for some questions.), but for sure, questions are VERY STRAITFORWARD from her lecture notes. Like, some mechanism questions of the exams, you can just memorize her notes and put it on the exam and get full credit. Maybe, there can be one or two very challenging questions (still, the key concept for those questions are covered in the class), but you can get an A even without getting any points from those questions since she is very generous with curving.. the class average is B- and the exam average is like 60% (Note it is low not because the exams are difficult but because she does not give much partial credits, and there are sometimes multiple-choice type questions with big points, which you cannot get any partial credit if you miss it). Plus, if you get better on the final, SPECIAL CONSIDERATION is made. I totally FAILED (LITERALLY) the first midterm, but it was possible to manage to get an A. (I got ~85 on the other exams.. the highest scores were like 97~98) You know, for most students, an easy grader is the best professor for such a challenging course like Ochem.

Comments
I think those who complain here, they are not reading textbook nor doing HW. They could not get an A and decided to take their anger out on the prof. Yes, you cannot get an A without reading textbook and doing HW. Hey,, there is nothing wrong with that fact...

It is obvious that the negative comments have to be written by students who didn't put that much effort in this class and don't want to take responsibility for their inadequate study. Professor Maynard is an extremely organized and a prepared lecturer. She stops to answer questions and finds time to go over a certain concept that she had questions with on the VOH. She promptly responds and explains what is what. The midterms required careful study, but would include something completely useless in chemistry, like which metal should be used with a certain crown ether. That would should be asked during a lab question. Another shortcoming during exams was naming that took many points away but is the least important. I mean, each book names differently, there is no one correct way, since IUPAC changes its nomenclature every year. Final exam was not easy, but it required a good understanding, logical approach and critical analysis; whoever chose to memorize reactions would be in a bad situation. As for the substitutes, they ran the class differently, interactively if you will, but Maynard's information about polymer chemistry and the actual use of the chemistry we are doing is very useful. The subs were ok besides the fact that one of them did a SN2 attack on a sp2 carbon atom, and then couldn't explain why it doesn't happen. Guys, SN2 attack on a SP2 Carbon is quantum mechanically disallowed, u cant approach the sigma star orbital....

Adiquate lecturer. however, she give NO partial credit on tests, even on questions that are worth a quarter of the test. you can get an answer 95% correct by any other professor's standards, and for her its zero points. dont bother talking to her about it, she does not understand, no amount of logic will change her mind. so in other words, no matter how well you know the material, you are going to get the same test grades as people who should legitamately fail. hows that for motivation? dont take her if possible.

Wow..i didnt think that class was that bad i ended up with an A..but im struggling my ass off in physics 6A