Recommended Review Books for AP Physics C Test Preparation

  • Thread starter Thread starter bomba923
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Book Short
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on finding effective review books specifically for the AP Physics C test, distinguishing it from AP Physics B. Participants emphasize the need for resources that concentrate solely on calculus-based physics, as the two tests cover significantly different material. Recommendations include Princeton Review and Kaplan for comprehensive, friendly study guides, while Barron's is noted for its challenging problems, although it may not be as accessible for high school students. One user shares a positive experience with Barron's, appreciating its pace and depth, which fosters both intuitive and mathematical understanding. They prefer a book that avoids trivial content and challenges them intellectually, indicating a desire for rigorous preparation for the AP Physics C exam.
bomba923
Messages
759
Reaction score
0
*I don't know who's familiar with the AP system, but
does anybody know any good review books for the
AP Physics C test? (NOT the "B" Test)

*I've found books that prepare for BOTH tests, but there
is a large difference between AP Physics B & C, and I'm hoping
for a book that discusses just the C. (I already know the "B",
I just need the "C"), because Physics w/Calculus is much different
from non-calculus physics---and I'm for a book dedicated solely to
the "C" (the test w/calculus), without spending too much time on "B."

*Any good book you guys know of?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
well it depends on what type of prep you need. do you want a comprehensive book that covers the material in a friendly manner with some practice problems? then go with Princeton Review or Kaplan. but if you want very little review, or subpar review, with tons of difficult questions, Barrons.
 
Thanks-->I tried the Barrons. Now that I'm three chapters into it, it's really quite interesting (does any else think Physics C is more interesting that Physics B?? I do/)
(Note: I shall make extensive use of smileys!)

The review was nice: even if I didn't "know" or learn/practice the concepts sometime before-->I just read it, take a minute or two to reflect/ponder-->and then move on with intuitive and mathematical understanding to the next lesson.
What I like about it is that (even though I've never taken Physics C or AP Physics before--only CalcII and self-taught Physics B), the text moves on at a nice pace: not slow, and not so fast that I can't reflect for a minute/two to make mathematical+intuitive sense of it.
Basically, for me, it resembles a "textbook" in that it covers a great quantity of topics, but without a lot of trivial reading/examples (hey--some of it is not "completely" review for me :smile:). Yes, some examples are indeed easy, but the bulk problems assigned in the book that are quite useful in understanding the concepts, applications, and in making the mathematical and intuitive sense out of each-->considering that a large part of the material is, I admit, "new" for me in the sense that, "I never thought of it this way..." (hey, I never took Physics C in the first place; I was just looking for a self-education and/or review for the AP Physics C test, since before I got the book, I only had CalcII knowledge from school, and that self-taught-->(during elementary-middle school "free time":biggrin:)-->Physics B).
JasonJo said:
book that covers the material in a friendly manner with some practice problems?
:smile:After reading the first three chapters of Barrons--well, I admit I can't say much, but I agree some may not find it "friendly." Indeed, I wouldn't call it "HS-friendly,":smile:(compared to HS-level Physics textbooks) but I understand it so far, and so it must be "college-friendly", since I'm just a HS junior. But personally, I wouldn't like a "friendly" book; I would rather have a challenging book, one that moves quickly or at least does not have a bunch of trivial reading-->I guess I might add "one that's not compromised/slowed down for HS reading" (or for those without math-physical intuition). (That*s why when I took 1st semester Organic Chemistry, I read "Volthardt", not "LG Wade Jr"--well, actually because the teacher told me it's shorter, though the "reading" might be longer? (?'?huh?))
Anyway, I like Barrons because I'm not encouraged to "skip" paragraphs when reading; when I read it, I feel that the information is useful->not trivial (or not that obvious i guess).

Jasonjo--thanks for recommending it! The review\study is nice, and the problems are nice and difficult, but its good that way:smile:)) :smile: .'
 
Last edited:
I’ve been looking through the curricula of several European theoretical/mathematical physics MSc programs (ETH, Oxford, Cambridge, LMU, ENS Paris, etc), and I’m struck by how little emphasis they place on advanced fundamental courses. Nearly everything seems to be research-adjacent: string theory, quantum field theory, quantum optics, cosmology, soft matter physics, black hole radiation, etc. What I don’t see are the kinds of “second-pass fundamentals” I was hoping for, things like...
TL;DR Summary: I want to do a PhD in applied math but I hate group theory, is this a big problem? Hello, I am a second-year math and physics double major with a minor in data science. I just finished group theory (today actually), and it was my least favorite class in all of university so far. It doesn't interest me, and I am also very bad at it compared to other math courses I have done. The other courses I have done are calculus I-III, ODEs, Linear Algebra, and Prob/Stats. Is it a...
Back
Top