> Lou knows quite well that the criticism of the Harvard text and ones like
> it is not one dimensional, as I have said over in over - it not only omits > theory, it also reduces computations and leaves out a myriad of topics. > > A Physical Chem. prof. was upset it left out parametric equations and > related rates and Eng. Prof. was mad it left out series, and Econ. > professor was upset it de-emphasized curve sketching. I have shown this > book to well over twenty people in other depts. and industry and each one
> finds something else they don't like. All agreed that the best training > for thinking comes from some proofs. Lou distorts the truth - I never > said that beginning calculus should be all about proofs, but every > non-mathematician I know, in academia or industry, thinks that some proofs > are good.
OK. The Harvard book is deficient. All books are, one way or another. So you supplement. Or choose a different reform text which isn't deficient. And supplement it, too, no doubt. I was scared off the Harvard text because of the deficiencies and use Dick and Patton, as fine a reform text as there could be, IMHO.
> Also I never said a calculus text should be an encyclopedia - but if we > are going to ask students to spend good money on one shouldn't contain > topics which they will need later on. Also I don't think including the > more than 20 omited topics - which are FUNDAMENTAL - is asking too much.
I had no idea that it was 20 topics -- fundamental at that -- which Harvard omitted. I was "scared" enough at the few I noticed. How many of the 20 topics are part of the AB AP Calculus curriculum? Are related rates really not there??
Dave Slomer AP Calculus and Computer Science Teacher Winton Woods HS, Cincinnati, OH 45240