Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
NCTM or The Math Forum.



Re: Reply to Jerry Rosen
Posted:
Jun 19, 1997 9:26 AM


> From: jerry rosen <vcmth00g@email.csun.edu>
> 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 deemphasized 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 > nonmathematician 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



