Ercek, D T on Ninja Courses

Average Ratings based on 3 ratings

Overall Assignments Exams Helpfulness Enthusiasm
40 42 47 44 34

Course Filter

Instructor Ratings

CHM ENG 141 (Spring 2015)

Overall Assignments Exams Helpfulness Enthusiasm
11 18 30 10 15

Comment: I can understand how teaching a subject like thermodynamics can be difficult but when you learn more from 3 hours of guest lecturing than the entire rest of the semester you can safely admit that your instructor is horrible. Allow me to go point by point. Assignments generally involved mathematical proofs or number crunching in MATLAB. They did not help in learning the theory at all. Tullman's enthusiasm was also clearly lacking. She showed no passion for the subject and often just read out of the book. She clearly only taught the class because she had to and even openly asked for students to rate her favorably on her evaluation just so she could get tenure. Lectures tended to be dull with a good portion of the class falling asleep or leaving(since 150A immediately proceeded 141 and was in the same room) during them. Finally exams tended to be a mix of regurgitating some random proof from lecture with a couple of true false questions. They ended up being about how much you could cram from your lecture notes. The final was mostly just questions from old homework assignments with little being done to assure students actually understood what they were were writing.

CHM ENG 141 (Spring 2015)

Overall Assignments Exams Helpfulness Enthusiasm
31 26 71 50 27

Comment: Oh boy, Thermodynamics. To be fair, Thermo is a subject that I figure very, very few instructors can make seem exciting, but Professor Tullman-Ercek was not one of those people. Her lectures were the driest lectures from any ChemE course I've taken so far -- filled to the brim with equation after equation, without any real emphasis on the relative importance of each one. Problem sets were consistently difficult, often involving various assumptions that had not been discussed in neither lectures nor the textbook (which was equally as bad as the lectures for understanding the material, but at least I wasn't forced to sit through 3 hours of having the textbook read to me each week). Midterms were easy relative to the problem sets, with true/false and fill in the blank sections as well as straight calculation problems. The final wasn't too bad, but was slightly more difficult than the 2 midterms. The one redeeming part of this course had to have been the head GSI, Michelle. Her office hours were always packed the day before problem sets were due, and she would always be incredibly helpful and answer everyone's questions. Once they realized that nobody was really understanding what was going on, the GSIs added a course Piazza page, which turned out to be extremely helpful due to (once again) Michelle answering every single question that got posted. Overall, I'm just glad this course is over, although I did learn a lot (again, thanks Michelle).

CHM ENG 170A (Fall 2013)

Overall Assignments Exams Helpfulness Enthusiasm
78 83 41 72 62

Comment: Good class, shame they're having trouble getting people to teach it and 170B. Learned about the basics of enzyme kinetics, advanced enzyme kinetics, mass transfer, thermodynamics, transport phenomena applied to enzyme kinetics, basic protein purification techniques, cell growth, biochemical product production, fermentation, bioreactor design, product recovery and processing was covered in pretty good detail by Tullman-Ercek. Lots of guest lectures by Brian Maiorella for pharmaceutical process development. Tullman-ercek's lectures were dry at times, but very informative. She didn't seem particularly confident in the beginning of the semester but she seemed to gain confidence throughout the semester. Homework was very doable and didn't take as much time compared to most ChemE classes but still required effort and time to get right. It wouldnt be a ChemE class if it didn't require you to think. Midterms could get tricky but were also fair. Helpful in office hours too.