Methods for assessing textbook quality -- Expert opinions needed

  • #1
Florian Geyer
94
16
Hello respected members.

I hope this message will find you all well,

I have came across a brand new textbook on quantum mechanics by J. D. Jackson, not his previous book (mathematics for quantum mechanics) but a new one edited by another physicist based on his lecture notes... I first thought that since it is written by a tested physicist who had written a bible in another subject, the book must be an excellent one, but then I doubted, because the previous is not a sufficient evidence, it is just a thought.

The previous sparked some questions I decided to put them here.
a) First how can I find some resources which discuss textbooks and their strengths and weaknesses? until now I am using the following methods:
- Searching on the internet (only on websites of experts like this forum).
- Looking for some reviews published on physics journal and read them, but the problem here is that I know too little on these journals and their sections dedicated for this kind of review.

b) The second question is just a generalization of the previous one, which is, is my current method of choosing textbook good? I do the following to choose between textbooks:
- In addition to the ways I have mentioned in my previous question, I do:
- Reading textbooks preface.
- Reading some reviews professors publish on their websites. (I remember only two examples right now, which are the one by G. t'Hooft, and the other by Baez.
- Previewing (if I couldn't choose between some textbooks which is better for me based on the previous criteria).

Any suggestion, notes, suggested adjustments, or additional methods will be highly valued.

With all respect.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Some general thoughts:
1) There is no such thing as a best textbook. There is a best textbook for you. A book that you enjoy reading and WORKING through is worth its weight in gold.
2) You need to pay attention to the level of the book. The Jackson book that you mention is based on the notes of a GRADUATE course.
3) There is a bunch of supporting stuff in the physics curriculum that is beyond the subject matter. The freshman year is also about problem solving. The sophomore year is about beginning to think like a physicist. There is also all of the supporting math that is frequently learned in physics courses directly. You need to choose books that do not leave these unspoken gaps in your abilities. You did not care for Elmore and Heald, but these are the kind of things that Elmore and Heald were also trying to teach in the book. I am not saying that you need to read Elmore and Heald.
4) I would describe the core of the undergraduate physics education as junior level EM, CM and QM. You need a learning path that gives you the knowledge AND sophistication to master these topics.
5) You need to think in terms of your curriculum.
6) You are currently learning freshman physics. The corresponding math you need to be thinking about is calculus, vector calculus, ODE’s and linear algebra. Be aware that the recommendations on these subjects can be math or physics focused.
7) You want to get into graduate school. At some point, you are going to need to think about admissions; i.e.; how do you prove what you know. I am not sure how to do this on a self-learning only path.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Likes Florian Geyer
  • #3
People come here wanting to self-study often look for the One Perfect Textbook. The One Pergect Textbook does not exist. Even at the upper-division undergraduate level people start to see the treatment in other books.

I met Dave Jackson a couple of times and talked with him a couple of times. He is a much smarter thn I am. But, as a former gradf student of his said "he was born in the wrong century". Without seeing his book, I imagine its treatment to be more analytic in nature, and less foundational for going beyond. There is probably a reason it is not used so much.
 
  • #4
Vanadium 50 said:
People come here wanting to self-study often look for the One Perfect Textbook. The One Pergect Textbook does not exist. Even at the upper-division undergraduate level people start to see the treatment in other books.

I met Dave Jackson a couple of times and talked with him a couple of times. He is a much smarter thn I am. But, as a former gradf student of his said "he was born in the wrong century". Without seeing his book, I imagine its treatment to be more analytic in nature, and less foundational for going beyond. There is probably a reason it is not used so much.
It was also published only last fall.
https://www.amazon.com/John-D-Jackson-Quantum-Mechanics/dp/1119880386/?tag=pfamazon01-20
 
  • Like
Likes Florian Geyer
  • #5
Well, if I were looking for The One Perfect Textbook, I wouldn't pick one without a track record.

I see Bob Cahn edited it. He has a different perspective than Dave did. May make for a great book. May make for a big mess. All the more reason to wait, or if you need one now, not to be the guinea pig.
 
  • Like
Likes CalcNerd and Florian Geyer
  • #6
Vanadium 50 said:
Well, if I were looking for The One Perfect Textbook, I wouldn't pick one without a track record.

I see Bob Cahn edited it. He has a different perspective than Dave did. May make for a great book. May make for a big mess. All the more reason to wait, or if you need one now, not to be the guinea pig.
It could be the Jackson of quantum texts, but given that the OP is at the freshman level, it would just as useful as Jackson. :wink:
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Likes jtbell and Florian Geyer
  • #7
Frabjous said:
Some general thoughts:
.........
Well first and foremost I want you to thank you about your caring and following my previous messages.

regarding the perfect textbook well, I agree with you that there is no such thing as the perfect textbook well but I think the problem here is reaching to a compromise that's to say avoiding bad textbooks or very old ones for example if they use some abandoned pedagogical methods or techniques for example if I use the textbook that uses quaternions I think by all means I shall avoid it. Yes, it's very rare to find a book that can be considered as a Bible. However, there are some of these unavoidable Bibles, like Jackson's EM since I read that almost like 95% of the departments provide higher physics education use it, which is why I think studying another textbook is not a good idea.
I think I have forgotten to add some other criteria for choosing textbooks like containing a lot of a problem or sufficient problems and preferably if these problems come after each section not after the whole chapter. (This is why I consider Dirac's QM a bad one).
Based on my previous criteria, I consider Boas mathematical methods as a superb textbook in its subject, for the same reason I think some other textbooks that should be avoided like Felder and Felder. Look at how it treated vector analysis.
Additionally, for me one of the important criteria for choosing a textbook is whether or not it contains a full Solutions manual (important for self-learners), and whether the textbook is explained in lectures on YouTube or any other platform.
Well I've bought a textbook on the classic call mechanics called theoretical mechanics by E. M. Nikitin I think this will not be a better choice than Fowles and Cassidy or Thornton and Marion.
Actually your previous thread (The changing physics curriculum in 1961) taught me a lot about the importance of using newer textbooks and why they are better than the old ones. The same thread can also explain why using the previously mentioned classical mechanics textbook is not a good option.

regarding the point on the hidden curriculum you have mentioned when you said that the first year or fresh money is about problem solving sophomore here is about thinking like a physicist I don't have a lot of information about this regard thus I hope you can suggest a book to me that contain a knowledge of such hidden curriculum for physics education at the University level

Talking about Elmore and Heald textbook I think it's a really good one, and actually I intend to study it in future. My only problem with the author is the mathematical sophistication he suggested in the preface of his textbook I think we have discussed this fully on a previous thread. I do not want to return to this point since there is a really tough guy here, who did not like my opinion, and went full ninja on my them like it was sunny in the Sahara :biggrin: 😅 .
One of the important reasons I liked this textbook is that it contains a lot of the materials which I do not like to study in separate textbooks life like optics (I did not like the textbooks on this material like (Hecht, Fowles, and Optics f2f… etc). So it is not a matter of I do not want to fill the gaps in my understanding.

The main reason of this thread is that I want to learn how to build my curriculum without making a lot of mistakes. I am concerned right now mostly with undergraduate textbooks, although I must admit that I am very curious about new textbooks, since I think knowing about them is an important part of studying in any major, since it provides important guidance.

I'm not sure about what do you mean by my curriculum do you mean the curriculum taught at my University? I am completely self-learner right now.
 
  • #8
Frabjous said:
It could be the Jackson of quantum texts, but given that the OP is at the freshman level, it would just as useful as Jackson. :wink:
I am just curious... I will not go in harms way until I get a solid understanding at the undergraduate level :biggrin:
 
  • #9
Florian Geyer said:
regarding the point on the hidden curriculum you have mentioned when you said that the first year or fresh money is about problem solving sophomore here is about thinking like a physicist I don't have a lot of information about this regard thus I hope you can suggest a book to me that contain a knowledge of such hidden curriculum for physics education at the University level
I would suggest creating a thread asking about people’s sophomore year.
I am not sure how you can self learn labs.
My sophomore year had Waves (Crawford), Special Relativity (I won’t recommend what we used. I’d suggest Spacetime Physics by Wheeler and Taylor) and Modern Physics (Tipler). We didn’t do it, but I would think about also learning some thermodynamics. I also knew ODE’s, Vector Calc and Linear Algebra by the end of the sophomore year. This was back in the 90’s.
Florian Geyer said:
there is a really tough guy here, who did not like my opinion, and went full ninja on my them like it was sunny in the Sahara
He’s worth listening to. He’s smart, knowledgeble, experienced, willing to speak uncomfortable truths and his heart is in the right place. On the other hand, he is not as witty as he thinks he is, can be mean and will respond to his impressions as opposed to what is actually written. The good outweighs the bad.
Florian Geyer said:
I'm not sure about what do you mean by my curriculum do you mean the curriculum taught at my University? I am completely self-learner right now.
You are developing your own curriculum.

I was serious about needing a plan to convert self-learning into graduate school admissions. This needs to be done sooner than later.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Likes Florian Geyer
  • #10
Whoever you are talking about behind their back, they can hear you. :smile:
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Likes Frabjous, Florian Geyer and berkeman
  • #11
Vanadium 50 said:
Whoever you are talking about behind their back, they can hear you. :smile:
Now *that* was pretty witty! :wink:
 
  • Like
Likes Florian Geyer
  • #12
Frabjous said:
My sophomore year had Waves (Crawford), Special Relativity (I won’t recommend what we used. I’d suggest Spacetime Physics by Wheeler and Taylor) and Modern Physics (Tipler). We didn’t do it, but I would think about also learning some thermodynamics. I also knew ODE’s, Vector Calc and Linear Algebra by the end of the sophomore year. This was back in the 90’s.
Thanks for sharing this, I will post a thread on the textbooks I have chosen for my goal (with their lectures if they have), and why I consider them good ones, as soon as I finish the stuff in my hand. then the respected members on this forum will be able to understand my point of view, and hopefully be able to help me.

Frabjous said:
He’s worth listening to. He’s smart, knowledgeble, experienced, willing to speak uncomfortable truths and his heart is in the right place. On the other hand, he is not as witty as he thinks he is, can be mean and will respond to his impressions as opposed to what is actually written. The good outweighs the bad.
Well, I agree with this totally, and respect his opinions a lot, and I know about his knowledge and experience (I have read a lot of his messages even before I registered in this forum. However, before I dive into his latest words of wisdom, I'm scouting the living room for the best defensive position. The armchair looks promising as a bunker. 😅 😅

Frabjous said:
You are developing your own curriculum.

I was serious about needing a plan to convert self-learning into graduate school admissions. This needs to be done sooner than later.
I have worked a lot for achieving this (and still there is a lot of work to be done to finish this).

Frabjous said:
I am not sure how you can self learn labs.
I will return to this point later, and try to discuss it in detail.
 
Last edited:
  • #13
Why not choose a couple of universities that have reasonable reviews (not the top ones in the country) then look at which books they recommend for their courses that you are interested in. The book choices will be based on what the university syllabus teaches and chosen by the professors teaching the course.

Some universities teach things to a more advanced level than others, so recommend books to suit their courses. For self taught people, especially those trying maths or physics, the very best universities might teach courses too tricky to self teach yourself, so that's why I said avoid the top ones.

I can't advise on physics because I am a chemist. But if someone was trying self learning chemistry, I would recommend the same approach.

Also remember that people here are likely to recommend books they have used themselves or that a friend has used. And as there is no perfect book, their views will be biased. I can think of a well-known chemistry text, which is used world wide for decades. And I simply did not like it! And yes I have a copy. But it reflects the courses taught by the author and his view of how to cover the topic.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes Joshy, dextercioby and Florian Geyer
  • #14
DrJohn said:
Why not choose a couple of universities that have reasonable reviews (not the top ones in the country) then look at which books they recommend for their courses that you are interested in. The book choices will be based on what the university syllabus teaches and chosen by the professors teaching the course.

Some universities teach things to a more advanced level than others, so recommend books to suit their courses. For self taught people, especially those trying maths or physics, the very best universities might teach courses too tricky to self teach yourself, so that's why I said avoid the top ones.

I can't advise on physics because I am a chemist. But if someone was trying self learning chemistry, I would recommend the same approach.

Also remember that people here are likely to recommend books they have used themselves or that a friend has used. And as there is no perfect book, their views will be biased. I can think of a well-known chemistry text, which is used world wide for decades. And I simply did not like it! And yes I have a copy. But it reflects the courses taught by the author and his view of how to cover the topic.
Your message made me think a lot about it, I will try to implement it in my future studying.
I think you ideas apply the same on physics learning as it applies for chemistry.
Thank you for sharing this.
 
  • #15
Frabjous said:
You are developing your own curriculum.

I was serious about needing a plan to convert self-learning into graduate school admissions. This needs to be done sooner than later.
I have not thought a lot about graduate school, since I suppose the biggest challenge I am facing right now is my extremely weak preparation in my undergrad.

Regarding how will I show graduate schools that I am prepared, and know what I know, I will try to do this by studying the materials from online learning platforms (Coursera, NPTEL, Edx... etc), and if I have the needed skills for graduate study, then this will be obvious from the GRE and qualifying exams.
The textbooks I intend to study are:
What I am almost sure:
- Sears and Zemansky's university physics.
- Rex Thornton Modern Physics.
- one of Thornton and Maroin, or Fowless Cassidy in CM.
- Griffiths EM.
- Griffiths QM.
- Heidelberg mathematical preparation for physics student.
- Boas mathematical methods.
- Rogalski Palmer Advanced University Physics (filling the gaps as you have mentioned previously).
- Regarding numerical methods I do not intend to learn anything beyond the basics, thus I will try Napolitano A Mathematica Primer for Physicists since I have studied almost half of it, and for matlap I will stick to Chasnov lecutere notes on numerical analysis. If I decided then to study more I will study demystified series on these softwares.


I am not sure:
- Ansermet thermodynamics (I am not sure if this is a good one for undergraduates, but the textbook is explained in Coursera by the author although in French, but I have the English textbook).
- for statistical mechanics I am also not sure, but perhaps I will use Kittel, since it is fully explained by professor John Preskill.


I think this is the core curriculum for my study, which I think is enough for a graudate program. If a miracle happened and I finished them and had more time (I know it will not), then I will add:
- Studing special reltivity from the previous textbooks.
- and studing Heald and Elmore vibrations in physics.
- some more mathematical methods.


Well regarding the courses, you will find courses and online explanaiton for the entire prevoius textbooks.

Any advice will be highly valued.

With all respect
 
  • #16
Florian Geyer said:
I have not thought a lot about graduate school, since I suppose the biggest challenge I am facing right now is my extremely weak preparation in my undergrad.

......................................................


Well regarding the courses, you will find courses and online explanaiton for the entire prevoius textbooks.

Any advice will be highly valued.

With all respect
maybe I shall add I am not an absolute beginner, I have some knowledge in some of the previous materials, and know calc1, 2, 3 at the level of Larson. I have studied vector analysis, ODEs, PDEs, linear algebra, at the level of math methods courses, though I think I need a lot more to improve my skills.
but my physics understanding is very basic that I am embarassed to share.
- Sears and Zeamsky's level of optics and vibrations and waves.
- Chen plasma physics the first two chapters.
- QM I have almost finished demystified, and I have studied some QM from Zetteli... I have studied the first two chapters of Griffiths QM, but really I haven't done any problems :biggrin:
I think it is obvoius that I have some understanding of math, but very little in math.
 
  • #17
Can you identify a couple of universities that will accept your non-standard educational path for graduate admissions?
 
  • Skeptical
Likes Florian Geyer
  • #18
Frabjous said:
Can you identify a couple of universities that will accept your non-standard educational path for graduate admissions?
I really don't know anything about graduate admission. but I have a bachelor degree... However my understanding of physics is entirely ridiculous.
Will my bachelor alongside with my self-path be enough for graduate admission?
 
  • #19
Florian Geyer said:
I really don't know anything about graduate admission. but I have a bachelor degree... However my understanding of physics is entirely ridiculous.
Will my bachelor alongside with my self-path be enough for graduate admission?
You want to get admitted to grad school with a non-standard educational path. You cannot name a school that would like to go to and you have not looked at admission requirements. You are not taking this seriously.
 
  • #20
Frabjous said:
You want to get admitted to grad school with a non-standard educational path. You cannot name a school that would like to go to and you have not looked at admission requirements. You are not taking this seriously.
- First, what do you mean by a standard educational path? is it just an undergrad certificate? if this is what you mean, then I have this certificate, but I don't have the required knowledge.
- Second, I have looked to some graduate schools admission requirements in some of the top universities, I think what they demand is almost similar: only undergraduate education and English proficiency certificate (TOEFL or IELTS) !! but when I read more on this on the internet I have found some other helpful thing to do:
  • The higher your accumulative grade, the better.
  • GRE physics.
  • GRE general.
  • If one does research and joined a research group as an undergrad. (I want to be a theoretical physicist, but can only join research group on plasma physics).
  • Recommendation letters.
  • Letter of intent.
- Lastly, is not physical knowledge in my case the most important thing right now?
 
  • #21
[Mentor Note: Thread moved from the Textbooks forum to the Academic Advising forum]
 
  • #22
Florian Geyer said:
Hello respected members.

I hope this message will find you all well,

I have came across a brand new textbook on quantum mechanics by J. D. Jackson, not his previous book (mathematics for quantum mechanics) but a new one edited by another physicist based on his lecture notes... I first thought that since it is written by a tested physicist who had written a bible in another subject, the book must be an excellent one, but then I doubted, because the previous is not a sufficient evidence, it is just a thought.

The previous sparked some questions I decided to put them here.
a) First how can I find some resources which discuss textbooks and their strengths and weaknesses? until now I am using the following methods:
- Searching on the internet (only on websites of experts like this forum).
- Looking for some reviews published on physics journal and read them, but the problem here is that I know too little on these journals and their sections dedicated for this kind of review.
I wouldn't do that. It is biased. Always! A true assessment depends on so many subjective variables you cannot even guess. It is impossible to get reliable answers from unknown authors. I have witnessed so many discussions of scientists on a political level, that you would be surprised how childish they sometimes are. And then there are the many standard controversies. Applied versus pure mathematics in mathematics, Bayes or not in probability theory, requirements for candidates of replacements, etc. in mathematics, and if you look specifically at QM then I recommend a look at our QM forums, especially the interpretation forum.

The motto I followed in those cases was always: I cannot know every book and its strength, but I know whom to ask! A recommendation by someone who prefers the same style, presentation, and scientific opinions as you have can never be underestimated, nor can references of unknown origin and authorship replace it.

Florian Geyer said:
b) The second question is just a generalization of the previous one, which is, is my current method of choosing textbook good? I do the following to choose between textbooks:
- In addition to the ways I have mentioned in my previous question, I do:
- Reading textbooks preface.
- Reading some reviews professors publish on their websites. (I remember only two examples right now, which are the one by G. t'Hooft, and the other by Baez.
- Previewing (if I couldn't choose between some textbooks which is better for me based on the previous criteria).

Any suggestion, notes, suggested adjustments, or additional methods will be highly valued.

With all respect.
I (unfortunately not always) looked at the content table, variable conventions, index, and reference registers. It is so frustrating to have an excellent book but you cannot find something you are looking for because of its lousy index and tables. Varadarajan's book on Lie theory is such an example. A gem of a book - with a poor index. AM's cross-references are borderline.

It is also helpful to read a passage where you already know the associated theory very well. It gives you an impression of whether the book provides what you expect. I once was offered the German version of the Britannica (yes, I'm old) and looked up the entry about the telephone. The article was full of Bell and did not mention Reis at all. Decision made. Never judge a book by its cover, or even less by its reputation as this simple test had shown.

Edit: I wrote this statement as the thread had been under "Science Textbooks" and before it had been moved to "Academic Guidance". What now looks a bit off-topic started well on-topic. Since it is a general recommendable advice in my opinion, I left it as is.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes Florian Geyer and dextercioby
  • #23
Florian Geyer said:
graduate schools admission requirements
What has changed since your last thread?

Where we left it in August, you were hoping someone would pay for a western-quality undergraduate education for you so that you would be competitive for western-quality graduate school. Many people pointed out the mismatch between the number of people who want this and the number who get it.

It was also pointed out that a degree where they didn't teach you the necessary material plus some self-study would not make you competitive for graduate school admissions. What has changed?
 
  • Like
Likes Florian Geyer
  • #24
Florian Geyer said:
is not physical knowledge in my case the most important thing right now?
No. You need to figure out a plan that has a reasonable chance of success. Saying that you are going to learn stuff and then get into grad school is not such a plan.
 
  • Sad
Likes Florian Geyer
  • #25
Frabjous said:
saying that you are going to learn stuff and then get into grad school is not such a plan.
To be fair, it's better than saying that you are not going to learn stuff and then get into grad school.
 
  • #26
We shouldn't forget that much of such recommendations also depend on where on earth we are talking about. It makes a big difference whether you live in NYC or in Alice Springs.
 
  • Like
Likes Florian Geyer
  • #27
The OPs profile says he's from the Virgin Islands, but he says he graduated from a university in Yemen.
 
  • Like
Likes Florian Geyer
  • #28
fresh_42 said:
I wouldn't do that. It is biased. Always! A true assessment depends on so many subjective variables you cannot even guess. It is impossible to get reliable answers from unknown authors. I have witnessed so many discussions of scientists on a political level, that you would be surprised how childish they sometimes are. And then there are the many standard controversies. Applied versus pure mathematics in mathematics, Bayes or not in probability theory, requirements for candidates of replacements, etc. in mathematics, and if you look specifically at QM then I recommend a look at our QM forums, especially the interpretation forum.

... (to the end of the reply)
Thank you for sharing this with me, your message is Illuminating I can't express how much I've learned from it. it added to my resources of reliable textbook reviews a lot like following the suggestions and recommendations of scientists and professors who have the same interests and opinions and style like mine. It also added to my criteria of defining good textbooks the alignment with my personal standards.It also gave me a new perspective on looking to the widespread and commonly used textbooks.I'm very grateful for you for sharing your Insight here.
 
  • Like
Likes fresh_42
  • #29
Vanadium 50 said:
What has changed since your last thread?

Where we left it in August, you were hoping someone would pay for a western-quality undergraduate education for you so that you would be competitive for western-quality graduate school. Many people pointed out the mismatch between the number of people who want this and the number who get it.

It was also pointed out that a degree where they didn't teach you the necessary material plus some self-study would not make you competitive for graduate school admissions. What has changed?
Thank you for following my previous threats and reading my previous messages.

I'm not sure about what do you exactly mean by what changed, I'm not sure if you mean changes all aspects, here is a detailed explanation of what I've done:

● Language:
the language aspect I've read many English books dedicated for native speakers to improve my English skills most of these books are short, then I suffered with some very advanced books (stories and novels? which I am working on until now.
Well why I've done that because I consider the language skills vital for acquiring knowledge in any field. Continue working on this aspect throughout my next Learning Journey.
At the end I came to the conclusion that's what I need most is reading comprehension skills and this is exactly what I will try to do next.

● Educational psychology:
I have delved into some educational psychology and understood a lot in this aspect. Again I consider this helpful for my future learning of physics and hopefully it will help me getting a good job.

● Regarding physics
- first I've worked a lot on scholarships and learned about them. I've read about almost all bridging programs I found so that when I am ready I know what to do. This also took a huge time.
And this regard first of all I've discovered that as many in this forum mentioned before that scholarships and financial aids are very little.
I decided that there are so many countries in the world other than the US. There are China, Canada, Germany, France, some parts of India, on so many others.
In Germany I've found so many good choices and scholarships that are fully founded, actually I liked many of them more than the ones provided by the US you can check them out the DAAD scholarships programs. So you can see that I decided to consider many varieties.

Secondly, I came to an agreement with your opinion that I need more than a bridging program, thus I will study the introductory courses by myself, and then I will try my luck with bridging programs.

- I've built my personal curriculum in physics which was not as easy as it seemed first. It also took a lot of dedication and time. But finally I have reached a good one in my opinion and standards. And as you can see I've been to reached to a final conclusion about one or two subjects.

- I've learned a lot about online courses and platforms that provides education of high quality, check Edx, Coursera, and NPTEL.
And again this also took some time.

● Regarding studying physics itself I've studied many chapters from Sears and Zemasnky's University Physics. I have studied:
- elasticity and equilibrium.
- fluid mechanics.
- vibrations and waves.
- some thermodynamics.
- I'm working right now on Optics.

I've studied the previous chapters well, but still I haven't written a lot of notes which I consider very important for studying from gigantic textbooks. However, I will review the previous chapters and do my notes and hopefully will able to to do all the problems of the highest level (the three stars once in Sears and Zemansky, and the red ones in Serway), but why Serway? Because I'm teaching from it to some students, at the same time it contains problems that are perfectly suited for my Sears and Zemansky's.

But when I well a return to these chapters trying to master them, I will apply for courses on them in Coursera, so that I get credit for what I've studied, and by the way there are some excellent courses on the previous materials in Coursera taught by professor Jason Haffner.

- Last note: I am using a speech to text software, so hopefully there is no misunderstanding due to some "dropped" words.
 
  • #30
Frabjous said:
No. You need to figure out a plan that has a reasonable chance of success. Saying that you are going to learn stuff and then get into grad school is not such a plan.
you made me think seriously about John Moffat, Ya Zeldovich, Ramanujan and the others :biggrin:
 
  • #31
Vanadium 50 said:
The OPs profile says he's from the Virgin Islands, but he says he graduated from a university in Yemen.
That's right, I have done that to add some privacy and freedom to my activities in this forum.
 

Similar threads

  • Science and Math Textbooks
Replies
28
Views
2K
Replies
35
Views
3K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
22
Views
998
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
10
Views
962
  • Science and Math Textbooks
Replies
19
Views
991
  • Science and Math Textbooks
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
534
Back
Top