Declining standards in textbooks.

  • Thread starter Thread starter CPL.Luke
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Textbooks
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around perceptions of declining standards in physics textbooks, particularly focusing on the simplification of content in newer editions compared to older ones. Participants explore the implications of these changes on educational standards and student comprehension, touching on specific texts and their audiences.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express concern that newer editions of textbooks, such as "Fundamentals of Physics," are overly simplified and expect less from readers compared to older editions.
  • Others argue that the distinction between "Physics" and "Fundamentals of Physics" should be acknowledged, as they are intended for different audiences.
  • A participant notes that older texts from the 1960s seemed to expect a more sophisticated reader, raising questions about whether students today are less sophisticated or if textbooks are addressing actual deficiencies in student knowledge.
  • Concerns are raised about the limited variety of problem types in newer editions, with one participant highlighting a lack of challenging problems in the thermodynamics, waves, and optics sections.
  • Some participants suggest that student feedback about textbooks may lead authors to simplify content, as students often complain about clarity and the number of examples provided.
  • One participant mentions that certain advanced texts, like Goldstein and Jackson, do not appear to have been simplified, indicating variability in textbook quality.
  • Another participant reflects on student engagement, noting that many students do not read the assigned textbooks, which may impact perceptions of the texts' effectiveness.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the topic, with no consensus on whether textbooks are indeed declining in quality or if the changes are justified based on student needs. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of these trends on physics education.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference specific textbooks and editions, indicating that opinions may depend on personal experiences and the context of their use in educational settings. There is also an acknowledgment of varying student engagement with the material.

CPL.Luke
Messages
440
Reaction score
0
has anyone else noticed this trend? It seems like every new edition that comes out has been dumbed down more than the last one, and expects less from the reader. I noticed this in the thread on haliday and resnick, the older editions are spoken og in high regard, while practically every person who is stuck with the new "fundamentals of physics" thinks that it is overly simplified. And agian in the thread on mechanics testbooks, apparently the "bible" of intermediate texts has been ruined in a recent edition.

I know that alo of undergrad programs just pick up the latet edition of whatever book they've been using for the past 20 years so could this trend cause an overall dumbing down of physics curriculuums?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What mechanics book are we talking about?

One thing that needs to be made clear about H&R is that Physics and Fundamentals of Physics have always been different books meant to address different audiences, with Fundamentals the simplified text. It would be more fair to compare editions of Physics or editions of Fundamentals.

It does seem to me that texts from the 60s seemed to expect a more sophisticated reader. Whether their readers were actually more sophisticated is another question. If books are including more remedial material, perhaps it's because they are actually trying to address the deficiencies students actually have.
 
oh sorry I wa referring to the newer edition of thronton ad marion, in the thread on "a better mechanics book" a couple of very bad amazon reviews of it are referenced.

I didn't realize that the fundamentals of physics and "physics" were two entirely separate texts, I was under the impresion that the fundamentals was just the newer iteration of physics

Edit: the main problem that I have with the fundamentals is the problems that the book uses. After searching through all of the thermodynamics/waves/optics sections I found a grand total of 4 problems that were anything more than number crunching.
 
Last edited:
the point is still valid if "fundamentals" is a version that did not exist until some decades after "physics".
 
I think the entire problem is that students complain (and rightly so) about texts, from not being well-written to not having enough examples. The authors inability to explain things clearly leads to them trying to "dumb" things down a bit. I often look at texts and think, I could write this so much more clearly.
 
Goldstein and Jackson haven't felt dumbed down at all...

The book we used in ph101 this year I thought was very good - lots of examples, well written text, etc. Whether it is dumbed down or not I am not sure, but I am sure of this - it doesn't matter. Less than one in every twenty students in the class actually read it. I got onto them as much as I could, but by the end of the course they weren't even bringing it to class.

To be honest, I'd be more inclined to wonder about the students than the book...
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
8K
Replies
9
Views
9K
  • · Replies 287 ·
10
Replies
287
Views
28K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 101 ·
4
Replies
101
Views
11K