I recommend taking Rubin if you can study ochem well on your own. He is not that great of a lecturer, especially during the first four weeks of class when he covers spectroscopy theory, which is useless and will leave you confused. Make his old tests your primary study resource, and then read over the book, etc. His lectures on reactions tend to have little continuity, thus sometimes it can be tough to figure out what exactly he's talking about since he tends to jump from topic to topic. Try to pay attention to his examples in lecture though because often times he will slip in something not emphasized by the book and put it on an exam. Many people seemed lost in my class. However, this comes to your advantage if you know ochem, because you'll be way ahead of the curve. So I guess your best gauge as to whether or not you should take Rubin is how you did in 30A. Don't take him if you struggled (unless you get a tutor or something). Take him if you owned 30A and feel confident with ochem. By the way he's very generous with the final grades. He even said himself that he rarely gives out any Ds or Fs. I think typically his curve is about 33% As, 33% Bs, 33% Cs. Be prepared for that 2nd midterm (our average on it was a 40).

What can you say...evidence why forcing researchers to teach is a recipe for disaster. I would feel better if I felt like he was making an effort. But that just isnt the case. I got an A in his class primarily as a function of how many hours I spent pouring through the book. As a lecturer he causes knowledge regression if anything. I felt more confused after leaving his lectures. Also, he is on the more difficult side to understand his accent. Best not to take him if you have any difficulties just learning from a textbook.

YOU CAN TELL HE IS A NICE GUY BUT HE REALLY DOESN'T LECTURE WELL. HE REALLY LIKES TO GO OFF ON TANGENTS BUT AS LONG AS YOU STUDY HIS NOTES, THE RELEVENT PARTS, AND THE PRACTICE MIDTERMS AND EXAMS EVEN THOSE FROM THE PAST QUARTERS, YOU SHOULD DO FINE.