So the prof got to DA without discussing it in the context of MO theory. Instead we got a resonance picture of what happens  ... this is what he told us:

1. 1,3-butadiene has both an electrophilic and a nucleophilic terminal carbon atom because we can draw resonance structures showing dipolar terminal carbon atoms ...

2. For ethene we can similarly draw a dipolar resonance structure.

From there we're told to simply use Coulomb's law - opposite charges attract - to complete the mechanism.

So, how adequate is his electrostatic explanation? Is it adequate - probably ... if one simply wants to learn it for a test. But is it conductive to further understanding of chemistry? I feel rather short-changed here since I'm paying him the big-bucks (tuition is insane) and the book goes into far greater detail ...

ETA: I asked the guy about and grilled him on the electrostatic explanation. For example I raised Martin's excellent point about the fact that the dieneophile cannot be that polarized - otherwise wouldn't it be a liquid instead of a gas due to the strong intermolecular attractions?

He instead went on a tangent on electron-withdrawing groups and how the electrostatic explanation can explain these ... what do you think?

So the prof got to Diels-Alder without discussing it in the context of molecular orbital theory. Instead we got a resonance picture of what happens... this is what he told us:

1. 1,3-butadiene has both an electrophilic and a nucleophilic terminal carbon atom because we can draw resonance structures showing dipolar terminal carbon atoms ...

2. For ethene we can similarly draw a dipolar resonance structure.

From there we're told to simply use Coulomb's law - opposite charges attract - to complete the mechanism.

So, how adequate is his electrostatic explanation? Is it adequate - probably ... if one simply wants to learn it for a test. But is it conductive to further understanding of chemistry? I feel rather short-changed here since I'm paying him the big-bucks (tuition is insane) and the book goes into far greater detail ...

ETA: I asked the guy about and grilled him on the electrostatic explanation. For example I raised Martin's excellent point about the fact that the dieneophile cannot be that polarized - otherwise wouldn't it be a liquid instead of a gas due to the strong intermolecular attractions?

He instead went on a tangent on electron-withdrawing groups and how the electrostatic explanation can explain these ... what do you think?

So the prof got to DA without discussing it in the context of MO theory. Instead we got a resonance picture of what happens ... this is what he told us:

1. 1,3-butadiene has both an electrophilic and a nucleophilic terminal carbon atom because we can draw resonance structures showing dipolar terminal carbon atoms ...

2. For ethene we can similarly draw a dipolar resonance structure.

From there we're told to simply use Coulomb's law - opposite charges attract - to complete the mechanism.

So, how adequate is his electrostatic explanation? Is it adequate - probably ... if one simply wants to learn it for a test. But is it conductive to further understanding of chemistry? I feel rather short-changed here since I'm paying him the big-bucks (tuition is insane) and the book goes into far greater detail ...

So the prof got to DA without discussing it in the context of MO theory. Instead we got a resonance picture of what happens ... this is what he told us:

1. 1,3-butadiene has both an electrophilic and a nucleophilic terminal carbon atom because we can draw resonance structures showing dipolar terminal carbon atoms ...

2. For ethene we can similarly draw a dipolar resonance structure.

From there we're told to simply use Coulomb's law - opposite charges attract - to complete the mechanism.

So, how adequate is his electrostatic explanation? Is it adequate - probably ... if one simply wants to learn it for a test. But is it conductive to further understanding of chemistry? I feel rather short-changed here since I'm paying him the big-bucks (tuition is insane) and the book goes into far greater detail ...

ETA: I asked the guy about and grilled him on the electrostatic explanation. For example I raised Martin's excellent point about the fact that the dieneophile cannot be that polarized - otherwise wouldn't it be a liquid instead of a gas due to the strong intermolecular attractions?

He instead went on a tangent on electron-withdrawing groups and how the electrostatic explanation can explain these ... what do you think?