A lot of courses involve as much memorization as they do only because they are taught without or prior to the foundations or tools that are used to solve common problems in them. For instance, in the cases of 'algebra-based' (i.e., no calculus prerequisite) physics classes and statistics classes, virtually all of the formulas that students are required to memorize just 'fall out' of the calculus if you learn that first. The same kind of thing is often true in math classes for engineering and science majors, where students are taught to memorize and apply a number of rules, as opposed to math classes for math majors, where students are provided the tools needed to prove those rules and walked through one or more proofs of them. That makes not only makes it possible to 'rediscover' or retrace a half-remembered rule even during a test, but also generally makes the rules much more memorable. Conversely, students who take the 'non-specialist' versions of those courses often encounter a kind of desiccated curriculum that, stripped of any articulation of the logical interrelations between its terms, demands treatment of those terms as 'brute facts' which must be memorized-- giving them a false impression of the subject itself as one that inherently requires or involves a high degree of rote memorization.
Assuming that there is no such sequencing issue involved for organic chemistry as it's commonly taught, and that a large number of 'brute facts' are an inherent feature of the subject matter, how is frantic, mechanical transcription a good use of in-class time in which students have access to a subject-matter expert? Transcription doesn't require the presence or time of an expert. Wouldn't it be better for students to perform such transcription outside of class, especially in advance of the lecture, and/or to receive paper copies of the contents of the board printed with double line spacing and wide margins at the beginning of class? In that case, both class time and students' notes could be better focused on questions, mistakes, and generally material of more substance than memorization.
Is there an assumption (or maybe an understanding informed by experience) that students just won't do such transcription (and thus not memorize the facts they need to) if they're not prompted to do so in class?