Why are textbooks in math and science so bad?

[Ki Man]

IF the texts were always perfect, the professors who use them would be out of a job

 

[TMFKAN64]

The thing is i don t really think research it is that difficult consider that he has so much free time

Careful, your ignorance is showing...

 

[kant]

Careful, your ignorance is showing...

Perhaps... but i am willing to be wrong.

 

[raolduke]

That can t be it, because some of my professor teaching the subject somtimes don t know what the book is talking about. For example, in my analysis text, it would sometimes throw out an equation in a proof without any justification. That is why i think some professor would present a proof of a proposition that is entire different from the book in the lecture.

I am not sure if this is a rare way of learning but you are able to learn intuitively. I believe that a lot of the learning I do is if when someone corrects me.

 

[J77]

I am studying mathematics at ucla. I am talk this upper dividion analysis course, and the professor only teachs one hour every day for 4 days a week. Can you tell me what kind of workload does he have?

Yeah -- he probably doesn't do anything but prepare for those 4 hours of work.

 

[morphism]

Yeah -- he probably doesn't do anything but prepare for those 4 hours of work.

My thoughts exactly.

Then we also get this gem:

The thing is i don t really think research it is that difficult consider that he has so much free time

kant, do you have the slightest idea how difficult it is to do original and meaningful research? It could very well take many years of hard work.

Also, not to derail this thread, there are many great textbooks. You just have to know where to look. For classical analysis for instance, there's Apostol's Mathematical Analysis, Simmons's Topology and Modern Analysis -- this one was actually recommended by mathwonk, and I found it to be great, Rudin's Real & Complex, Bartle's Elements of Integration and Lebesgue Measure, and the list goes on. See mathwonk's thread stickied in this forum: "who wants to be a mathematician?" And also the textbook subforum. People recommend and praise good texts all the time.

 

[mathwonk]

the fact that good information seems to be derailing the thread is a sign of the vacuousness of this thread.

this thread is an example of the "blind leading the blind" and would benefit from derailing.

i will make one remark. it is not professors but students who have the free time. i have been both, and a student has essentially nothing to do compared to a professor. and the standards for students are infinitely lower.

professors occasionally reminisce about how nice and carefree it was to be a student, and long for the days when all they had to do was enjoy learning while someone else did all the work of understanding the subject and explaining it to them.

dont be a sap. start reading and learning. especially if you aspire to having all that "free time" yourself as a professor.

 

[kant]

Also, not to derail this thread, there are many great textbooks. You just have to know where to look. For classical analysis for instance, there's Apostol's Mathematical Analysis, Simmons's Topology and Modern Analysis -- this one was actually recommended by mathwonk, and I found it to be great, Rudin's Real & Complex, Bartle's Elements of Integration and Lebesgue Measure, and the list goes on. See mathwonk's thread stickied in this forum: "who wants to be a mathematician?" And also the textbook subforum. People recommend and praise good texts all the time.

You don t make any sense here. I pointed on that there are a lot of aweful textbooks, and student have to buy it because the course are based on the structure of those aweful books. Are there good textbooks out there? sure there are, but what is your damn point? Perhaps research is hard, but like i said before, i am willing to be wrong. In my own opinion talking to my physics professors, it seems researching is sort of fun. I belief what he said was: "make **** up".

 

[kant]

the fact that good information seems to be derailing the thread is a sign of the vacuousness of this thread.

this thread is an example of the "blind leading the blind" and would benefit from derailing.

It depends on the subject matter of a thread. it wouldn t be fun for me if it was otherwise.

i will make one remark. it is not professors but students who have the free time. i have been both, and a student has essentially nothing to do compared to a professor. and the standards for students are infinitely lower

professors occasionally reminisce about how nice and carefree it was to be a student, and long for the days when all they had to do was enjoy learning while someone else did all the work of understanding the subject and explaining it to them..

Are professors really that busy? I don t know, so please enlighten me.

dont be a sap. start reading and learning. especially if you aspire to having all that "free time" yourself as a professor.

I don t understand what you are saying here

 

[mathwonk]

looks simple enough to me.

 

[kant]

Is that your reply?

 

[trinitron]

"i am willing to be wrong. "

Ok, but don't be so proud of it.

 

[light_bulb]

back to the original topic, I'm using school math textbooks and you'd think they would explain MATH clearly enough so i wouldn't have to go to at least 2 other sources to get a though explanation. right now i have a math study cd set, at least two books for every level of math and use the web liberally and what one doesn't explain another does, this isn't supposed to be a puzzle imo. i wish i could purchase a set of books that had what my notebook contains after much bs. the other group of books that turn learning into a puzzle are computer science books, maybe in college they use a better system and better books?

 

[las3rjock]

You don t make any sense here. I pointed on that there are a lot of aweful textbooks, and student have to buy it because the course are based on the structure of those aweful books. Are there good textbooks out there? sure there are, but what is your damn point?

I believe the point is that there is no fundamental barrier preventing you from finding a good textbook, acquiring it, and learning from it. I know that many university students do not buy their textbooks before classes begin because many university courses follow the assigned textbook loosely, if at all, and if they don't need to buy a book that they will use rarely (or not at all), then they don't.

 

[raolduke]

I really don't like texts written now because they try to make everyone feel included racially and sexually.

 

[J77]

Perhaps a problem could be that in this modern era of information overload; eg. google, wiki, students these days want to be spoon-fed the methods, questions and answers -- rather than really reading a textbook, no matter how badly written, and trying to understand it!

 

[Sojourner01]

The bame for failure of understanding is not so much that of textbooks, but of the mismatch between lecture courses, previous schooling, and the textbooks. Books assume i) prior knowledge which schools haven't been bothered to teach or ii) a rigorous understanding of the surrounding concepts which the college hasn't bothered to teach. For the book author's part, they should be more aware of the capabilities of their audience.

My biggest criticism of lecturers is sloppy mathematics. While lecturers tend to elucidate mathematical work only casually, textbooks tend to be extremely strict in their formalism while rarely giving detailed workthroughs of the method. When the lecturer isn't explicit enough, these can go over the head of the reader - not knowing the names or the formal definitions of certain theorems and so on can be a severe handicap in understanding.

 

[kant]

"i am willing to be wrong. "

Ok, but don't be so proud of it.

I don t know anyone who has never been wrong. I am just being realistic.

 

[kant]

I believe the point is that there is no fundamental barrier preventing you from finding a good textbook, acquiring it, and learning from it. I know that many university students do not buy their textbooks before classes begin because many university courses follow the assigned textbook loosely, if at all, and if they don't need to buy a book that they will use rarely (or not at all), then they don't.

Where did you do to college? The classes for math and physics do follow the structure of the book. Professors assign exercise problems from the course textbook. Even if you yourself go, and bought a better textbook to study the subject. There are still many problems. One of the problem associated might be time.

 

[kant]

Perhaps a problem could be that in this modern era of information overload; eg. google, wiki, students these days want to be spoon-fed the methods, questions and answers -- rather than really reading a textbook, no matter how badly written, and trying to understand it!

Like i said before. It is really not a very good argument when you consider many university math, physics professors think the textbooks are bad also.

 

[J77]

Like i said before. It is really not a very good argument when you consider many university math, physics professors think the textbooks are bad also.

And you've spoken to many ?

 

[mathwonk]

i suggest deleting this thread. there is no advice sought here, mostly rants and childish complaining and whining.

 

[hrc969]

Where did you do to college? The classes for math and physics do follow the structure of the book. Professors assign exercise problems from the course textbook.

Well maybe that's true for the college you went to. But most of my classes have been such that the professor doesn't follow a book and assign their own problems (which may also be found in some textbook, but its not like they say go do problems 3,5 and 7 of a certain chapter of a book).

Even if you yourself go, and bought a better textbook to study the subject. There are still many problems. One of the problem associated might be time.

If you really want to learn a subject you'll put in the time for it. Also you don't need to buy another book there are plenty of books at libraries. I don't know how it work at your school but at mine we can even order books from other libraries (in the same state education system). When I took Complex Analysis I had at least ten books, there are some I like better than others but I think I would have been limiting myself by only having the suggested book (Ahlfors). Plus the professor did not even follow that text.

I think a big difference in who follows books and who doesn't is whether they are tenured professors or not. Most of the professors I have had have been "full" (tenured) professors, so they have much greater freedom in how they run their course. Also I have taken many honors courses and that make a difference too. Again more freedom for the professor. But even when the professor does not follow any book they have still recommended books they think are good or their favorites. Sometimes they don't mention books but if we ask what their favorite books on the subject they definitely name some books. I have taken a few courses from assistant professors and one professor (who I have had twice now) did not like the textbooks he was FORCED to used and the syllabus he was FORCED to follow. I'm not sure if he was really forced but that's how he described it. Anyways he was certainly able to recommend other textbooks.

 

[hrc969]

Like i said before. It is really not a very good argument when you consider many university math, physics professors think the textbooks are bad also.

Actually some of the good books are thought to be too hard for the students used to being spoon fed and hence "easier" books are used even if they aren't that great. But read my previous post for you. Professors usually know quite a number of books that are good for the subject.

Have you ever asked a professor to recommend a book and said that all the books on the subject are bad?

Like Mathwonk said, I think you guys are just whining. If you want to learn , then do it. Its not easy and yeah, it takes up time. But if you are interested in learning that's what you need to do.

 

[G01]

I am talking about upper and lower division textbook in mathematics and physics. Why are they in geneal so hard to understand, and so low quality anyways? This is not just an attitude for the intellectually inferior, but something i repeat heard from my own professors in mathematics, and physics. It seems for most students, most of the understanding of the material comes from attending the lectures, and taking the notes. A follow up question would then be: Why are the notes are so much better than the books, but yet we have so much more books, and hardly any notes in our libraries? i asked this question before, but i don't think it was the right forum. since only professors write textbooks. I would like to ask the professors out there: Why don t you just give us the notes? Is it too much to ask? Why is it the most of your don t like the textbooks, and do nothing about it?

These textbooks I consider good quality:
Halliday Resnick& Walker Fundamentals of Physics

Serway Moses & Moyer's Modern Physics

Griffith's- Quantum Mechanics

Stewart's Calculus

Blanchard Devaney & Hall's Differential Equations

I have been pleased with all of these books.

 

[kant]

And you've spoken to many ?

I got a good sample from ucla.

 

[kant]

i suggest deleting this thread. there is no advice sought here, mostly rants and childish complaining and whining.

i think this topic resonate with other people. In any case, it make very little sense if the whole purpose of coming to a discussion forum is to get information.

 

[kant]

Well maybe that's true for the college you went to. But most of my classes have been such that the professor doesn't follow a book and assign their own problems (

i have never heard this before. All the courses i took, the professors follow the structure, and section strictly, and assign problems from the sections in the book. I would like to know where you go to university.

If you really want to learn a subject you'll put in the time for it.

This is naive opinion. You want to put in more time on a single subject, but this is not always possible consider you have other courses you have to take also. There "is" time presure, and deadlines.

Also you don't need to buy another book there are plenty of books at libraries. I don't know how it work at your school but at mine we can even order books from other libraries (in the same state education system).

My university have the same system, but this is irrevalent. There are plenty of good online books, but having the time, and energy to read it is a different matter. It is just not very practical.

 

[kant]

Actually some of the good books are thought to be too hard for the students used to being spoon fed and hence "easier" books are used even if they aren't that great. But read my previous post for you. Professors usually know quite a number of books that are good for the subject.

Have you ever asked a professor to recommend a book and said that all the books on the subject are bad?

Like Mathwonk said, I think you guys are just whining. If you want to learn , then do it. Its not easy and yeah, it takes up time. But if you are interested in learning that's what you need to do.

There is time constrict, and deadline that factors into the college experience. I would love to read the great american novel, but i don t have time. Besides, even those people doing mathematical research hate to go to the book( dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~twk/Lecture.pdf) i think one of the reason is that the book suck also at the more advance level.

 

[hrc969]

I got a good sample from ucla.

Ever talk to Brent Corbin?

Anyways do you remember any of the professors you talked to. I know the math and physics departments at UCLA very well (I know the math department a lot better though).

Do you go to UCLA yourself?

i think this topic resonate with other people. In any case, it make very little sense if the whole purpose of coming to a discussion forum is to get information.

Yes, it will resonate with a whole bunch of lazy students.

i have never heard this before. All the courses i took, the professors follow the structure, and section strictly, and assign problems from the sections in the book. I would like to know where you go to university.

I go to UCLA. Like I said before, the pattern that I have noticed is that full professors have more freedom with courses and it depends on what courses you take. I have taken mostly advanced courses. The courses that a lot of people take are much more rigid in terms of the syllabus for the course. Of two undergrad classes I am taking right now, 1 of them is the type where the professor does not really follow any book. He assigned his own problems for the quarter (again if you look in books you can find some of them, sometimes with outline sometimes just the statement).
The other is from an assistant professor (non-tenure track), he has complained several times about the syllabus he HAS to follow and having to use the specific book we are using. He's still good about following the syllabus and following the book as you describe that your professors have followed it. I took a topology class last spring from an assistant professor (not sure if tenure track or not) she had to follow the book and did pretty much every sections one after the other again like you have described that all your classes have been like. I took differential geometry two winter quarters ago and the professor (full professor) gave us his own notes. He is a differential geometer so he knows the subject very well. He did not even assign a book. He did however recommend a few books that he liked.

Actually even the very good associate professors that I have had have followed the book (actually here I have only taken one undergrad class with an associate professor). But it was not his subject of expertise and I'm not sure if he was forced to follow any certain syllabus. Some full professors choose to follow the normal syllabus for whatever reasons I won't say anything in specific because I'm not too sure.

But I have acknowledged many times (not here) that I have been very fortunate to have taken the classes that I have taken with the professors that I have taken them. Maybe you haven't been as lucky.

This is naive opinion. You want to put in more time on a single subject, but this is not always possible consider you have other courses you have to take also. There "is" time presure, and deadlines.

Yeah... I know ALL ABOUT TIME PRESSURE. Once I took 28 units in one quarter and was doing research on top of that. I had about 2 midterms per class. Weekly homework for every class. I still managed to study manifold theory on my own that quarter on top of reading lots of different sources on (classical) differential geometry (I was taking the class I mentioned before where the professor gave his own notes and did not assign any book), linear algebra and analysis. Yes having pressure is though. I have been there. But we have to set our priorities straight. For me they are to learn as much mathematics as well as I can for when I go to grad school. For some their priority is "to be a college student" (this is a real quote that I got from one of my classmates). I don't know exactly what that means but that guy seems like a person for who this thread will resonate as you talked about before.

My university have the same system, but this is irrevalent. There are plenty of good online books, but having the time, and energy to read it is a different matter. It is just not very practical.

For every subject I have studied the online books available are nowhere near as good as some of the books I have gotten from the library (and other libraries in the system) or bought if they were books that I particularly liked.

About having time: What I have always thought is that if you really want to do it you will make time. Maybe some people think that putting in the time required to learn is "uncool" (as per a previous comment by you), but that's not a textbook author's problem.