The Cambridge explanations aren't very good for a first introduction to the topic. But I find them very helpful to gain a deep understanding of a topic, they cover all edge cases and with the proofs make things make sense together. Maybe that's just me though
Cambridge vs Fitzpatrick: A Final Vote (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter AKONS
- Start date
ExtremelyBoredUser
Bored Uni Student
Yeah the explanations at most times is just straight up bad or confusing. The only downside to cambridge is its worked explanations and "explanations" but its so good in classrooms because teachers can explain the concepts and you can just do the questions. You're better off learning from youtube or your teacher than the book imo. Not to say its bad, its pretty good as a revision material because you can understand it after.
Last edited:
Cambridge explanations are mathematically rigorous. It's very nice once you get used to reading it.
Yeah 100% agree
yao_jahang
Member
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2021
- Messages
- 90
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2023
what's the best textbook for 4u? Terry lee, Cambridge?
you could just do both lol
Cambridge probably does a better job with the theory.
terry lee harder qs maybe.
Life'sHard
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 24, 2021
- Messages
- 1,102
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2021
- Uni Grad
- 2025
What's that corona guy. Uhh I think it was Coroneos but his questions were actually quite difficult if I remember correctly. I picked up one of the older publications and tried to do them my god.
ExtremelyBoredUser
Bored Uni Student
The 100 coroneos integration problems was pretty nice as a marathon.
Jim Coroneos had books on all levels of the older syllabus, with plenty of good questions. However, the explanations were awful, IMO. The books were also very old fashioned in style (black and white with diagrams with handwritten additions, for example), but they remain a source of good questions.
Cambridge Advanced and MX1 is very much in the teaching style of Bill Pender, and it certainly is mathematically rigorous. MX1 and MX2 students who can't follow the explanations in Cambridge when first looking at a topic should look to a book with a style that better suits... but if you can't follow them even once you do grasp the theory, that is a reason for concern. If you are struggling with questions at first, Maths in Focus is suitable for easy questions and confidence building, but you need to do questions from a better source after that. The Cambridge MX1 books do have some extra questions on the Advanced topics, so anyone doing MX1 or MX2 should use just the Cambridge MX1 books and not use the Advanced books for the material at that level.
The Cambridge MX2 book is similar in style, but is written by David Sadler. Sadler and Pender worked together at SGS for many years and have similar approaches. If anything, DS wrote harder exam questions than did WMP, so the challenging material in the MX2 book is up to the end-of-HSC-exams standard.
Cambridge Advanced and MX1 is very much in the teaching style of Bill Pender, and it certainly is mathematically rigorous. MX1 and MX2 students who can't follow the explanations in Cambridge when first looking at a topic should look to a book with a style that better suits... but if you can't follow them even once you do grasp the theory, that is a reason for concern. If you are struggling with questions at first, Maths in Focus is suitable for easy questions and confidence building, but you need to do questions from a better source after that. The Cambridge MX1 books do have some extra questions on the Advanced topics, so anyone doing MX1 or MX2 should use just the Cambridge MX1 books and not use the Advanced books for the material at that level.
The Cambridge MX2 book is similar in style, but is written by David Sadler. Sadler and Pender worked together at SGS for many years and have similar approaches. If anything, DS wrote harder exam questions than did WMP, so the challenging material in the MX2 book is up to the end-of-HSC-exams standard.