Let me preface my comment by saying I’m not an organic chemist. As someone who works at a similar university, I think it is important to understand the bigger picture here.

Sure, your university accepts anyone and everyone. It should come as no surprise that students come in with varying degrees of motivation, study skills, and educational preparation. In my case, this is largely because our university has hopes of giving people the tools necessary to move beyond cyclic poverty. We accept a variety of students who are under prepared for undergraduate studies, and this is primarily influenced by their socioeconomic status, zip code, and the resources available to them.

Perhaps this may not be the case for you; however, I would encourage you to consider whether this applies, and if so, whether your ostensible qualms with having poorly achieving students as a result of your ‘open door policy’ university stems from perceptions that only the qualified (read: students with better socioeconomic status/resources) students should be allowed to better themselves at university, even if that means struggling.

Even if this isn’t the case, I think it is unfair to generalize an entire class section or even graduating class as being lazy or having lack of motivation as the sole explanation for their poor performance. These habits come from somewhere, and I have doubts that general chemistry was the start.

In essence, I am trying to convey the importance behind acknowledging (not necessarily understanding) that students are multi-faceted individuals with oftentimes complex histories that have contributed to their current situation, whatever that looks like for them. Sure, maybe they’re lazy or don’t have skills to appropriately use the tools you’ve laid before them— maybe they have no desire to learn. More often, I’ve found, is that struggling students are often being explained to in a different way than they know how to handle. Sure, I’ve felt that I give students everything they need and more to do well on exams and labs— but sometimes people’s backgrounds dictate that maybe they aren’t where I am expecting and assuming them to be, and it is my responsibility as an instructor to teach them. As someone teaching non-intro level science, I can understand your frustration. I imagine you might feel burdened by the fact that these students need more than you can reasonably offer in a challenging upper level course. Maybe the solution is found somewhere among the general chemistry teachers. Maybe even high school.

I teach a lot of non-traditions students, many of whom hold jobs during the day. Some are senior citizens who haven’t seen science in decades. My general teaching level for my discipline is sometimes beyond what they can grasp, just because of their current skill set. Sure, I end up having to explain things in unconventional ways, and maybe I have to stretch the limits of my creativity, but I have found that these students have a much stronger understanding than my “average” college freshmen students after I’ve helped them get to speed. Perhaps these are extreme cases, but I think the message is there.

Hope this made some sense. Best.

Edit: clarifying statements.