Bad as yours is, I don't think it compares with somebody "teaching" the course who can't even tell whether it's a proof for not. "Pons asinorum" comes to mind; the double entendre name for the (unnecessarily awkward) traditional proof of the base angles of an isosceles triangle theorem, Prop 5, the first real theorem of Euclid's Elements from a modern perspective. The implied asses who couldn't get over the bridge having no business studying geometry (and, by implication, the rest of standard intellectual studies) were assumed to be students, not their teachers.
For hundreds of years (millennia?), that traditional proof remained standard even after more insightful, and much easier, proofs were discovered. Who knows? Maybe the perception was that the original was somehow superior? I consider your situation more reflective of a similar misconception about US precollegiate mathematics books. With a few rare exceptions (higher-level Saxon Math comes to mind), they were not even proofread, much less written by, mathematicians. Ugly but true.
At 09:57 AM 7/3/2013, Louis Talman wrote: >On Tue, 02 Jul 2013 15:22:02 -0600, Wayne Bishop <email@example.com> >wrote: > >>of the participants - currently a geometry teacher of such - announced >>to the class (with no appearance of guilt, just healthy ignorance) that >>he insisted that his students replicate the T- style proofs following >>exactly the same steps as the solutions manual because, otherwise, he >>could not tell if they were correct or not. > >I'm not sure if my horror story is better or worse. > >My HS geometry teacher could tell whether or not my (double-column) >geometry proofs were correct or not. > >But she refused to give me credit when I gave proofs, which she admitted >were correct, of theorems proved in our book, if my proof was different >from the proof in the book---saying "The man who wrote the book is a >mathematician, and he gave that proof for a reason. You aren't a >mathematician, so you must use his proofs. When you're a mathematician, >you can use whatever proofs you want to." > >Fortunately, I could tell whether or not *she* was correct. But, now that >I am a mathematician, I do use whatever proofs I want to. > >--Louis A. Talman > Department of Mathematical and Computer Sciences > Metropolitan State University of Denver > > <http://rowdy.msudenver.edu/~talmanl>