Lots of good points being made which I won't reiterate, but in no particular order: * Let's be grateful that people are writing actual science questions, not the formerly ubiquitous "name the scientist from his parent's occupations and godchildren" schlock. * Much of the demarcation of a "biochemistry" question into either bio or chem depends on how the question is written. * For example, I would classify a a tossup on the alpha helix as chemistry if it referred to the relative energy stabilities of different amino acids in the helix. I would classify it as biology if it focused on how it is used in transmembrane proteins. * Why do people tend to write a lot of organic chemistry questions? Some possible answers: - Most recent chemistry course the writer has taken ... - Lots of named, askable topics (reactions, reagents, etc.) - Very few things in general chemistry that one can write a GOOD question on ... * Jason mentioned the predominance of physics -- I don't particularly see it, but I do hear a lot of poor physics questions. It's not a factor of bad writing, I think it's because there's not a whole lot of good physics stuff to write about without degenerating into "name that particle" or "electricity bowl." (More to come ...) -- eps, continuing the crusade for quality science.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:45 AM EST EST