Cambridge vs New Senior Mathematics (1 Viewer)

[i1337]

Which has the best explanation and exercises? I noticed NSM 3u has one book for year 11 and 12 3 unit maths. It seems to be less pages than the combined Cambridge. Is it because the questions are just less repetitive? Which would be better to learn from (self study, maybe a few casual tutoring sessions but nothing more)

 

[davidgoes4wce]

Fitzpatrick explains thing in a more reader friendly way. I understood it alot more clearly reading Fitzpatrick book first. Personally, feel that alot of students studying Extension for the first time would get a bit lost with the terminology used in Cambridge if they were doing certain topics for the first time.

Cambridge explains things in a more theoretical way. Cambridge explanation is more closer to HSC standard and university style maths.

I think in the Foreword of Cambridge they do mention that the purpose of the book is not to do every question. (They make a suggestion to do as many questions until you understand the concepts) There are 3 phases: Beginning, Development and Extension questions. If you knock off the majority of the Development questions it should be enough to get an E4. If you do knock off the extension questions, then an E4 is a certainty.

It would not be a stupid thing if you went to an easier text say Grove as well as they explained Binomials quite well , circle geometry as well.

I hardly touched Circle Geometry back in my high school years, so have been going back to the 5.3 texts (year 10) to brush up on some aspects as there is an overlap with extension 1 Year 11 maths.

 

[RyanT7]

Fitzpatrick explains thing in a more reader friendly way. I understood it alot more clearly reading Fitzpatrick book first. Personally, feel that alot of students studying Extension for the first time would get a bit lost with the terminology used in Cambridge if they were doing certain topics for the first time.

Cambridge explains things in a more theoretical way. Cambridge explanation is more closer to HSC standard and university style maths.

I think in the Foreword of Cambridge they do mention that the purpose of the book is not to do every question. (They make a suggestion to do as many questions until you understand the concepts) There are 3 phases: Beginning, Development and Extension questions. If you knock off the majority of the Development questions it should be enough to get an E4. If you do knock off the extension questions, then an E4 is a certainty.

It would not be a stupid thing if you went to an easier text say Grove as well as they explained Binomials quite well , circle geometry as well.

I hardly touched Circle Geometry back in my high school years, so have been going back to the 5.3 texts (year 10) to brush up on some aspects as there is an overlap with extension 1 Year 11 maths.

Would you say doing half of the development questions in the exercise would suffice for an e4 In Mx1 ?

 

[davidgoes4wce]

Would you say doing half of the development questions in the exercise would suffice for an e4 In Mx1 ?

More than definitely. Maybe every second question in the development section would suffice.

 

[leehuan]

Would you say doing half of the development questions in the exercise would suffice for an e4 In Mx1 ?

More than definitely. Maybe every second question in the development section would suffice.

No. Past papers hold much more precedence over any textbook's questions.

It just so happens that certain Cambridge questions do actually reflect exam quality questions decently well.
____________

@OP yeah Fitzpatrick is probably a lighter read to learn the actual content but whilst both are good in questions, Cambridge has an edge

 

[eyeseeyou]

No. Past papers hold much more precedence over any textbook's questions.

It just so happens that certain Cambridge questions do actually reflect exam quality questions decently well.
____________

@OP yeah Fitzpatrick is probably a lighter read to learn the actual content but whilst both are good in questions, Cambridge has an edge

DatAtarLyfe told me that a terry lee (4U) is very good as it is on par with the past papers

 

[RyanT7]

No. Past papers hold much more precedence over any textbook's questions.

It just so happens that certain Cambridge questions do actually reflect exam quality questions decently well.
____________

@OP yeah Fitzpatrick is probably a lighter read to learn the actual content but whilst both are good in questions, Cambridge has an edge

Alright, let me rephrase this then. If you did the first half of the development questions, should you be able to do all of the questions in past papers ? Kind of a broad question, but just need a brief answer

 

[leehuan]

Alright, let me rephrase this then. If you did the first half of the development questions, should you be able to do all of the questions in past papers ? Kind of a broad question, but just need a brief answer

Quite a lot? I'd hope so

All? That's hard to say, because the final few marks are not that easy to just "see" what to do.

 

[davidgoes4wce]

Alright, let me rephrase this then. If you did the first half of the development questions, should you be able to do all of the questions in past papers ? Kind of a broad question, but just need a brief answer

I think you need to mix up a few 2nd half of those development questions as well. The first half of the development questions are a tad easier than the second half of the development questions. Ideally , something reasonable like every 2nd question in the development section is a good idea.

 

[davidgoes4wce]

I hardly touched Circle Geometry back in my high school years, so have been going back to the 5.3 texts (year 10) to brush up on some aspects as there is an overlap with extension 1 Year 11 maths.

I also tutored a student this weekend and he told me (boys school which I prefer not to say), their school hasn't covered Circle Geometry in Year 10. So it looks like I wasn't the only one who didn't learnt it at that time. (So I guess I'll give home some extra work in that area when I see him next). Im aware that educational companies like Matrix cover that material in the period April-June for their courses for Year 10 students, which is a massive advantage for those students. I also don't know about you guys, but studying Circle Geometry from a coloured textbook, I pick up the concepts a lot better than reading from a black and white text. Also starting to think of it now, there is a fair overlap with Prelim Maths Extension and Year 10 Stage 5.3 maths. (e.g Circle Geometry, Polynomials, Trigonometry/Trig graphs/Trig identities, Probability (Tree Diagrams, Venn Diagrams, Tables), Functions and Other Graphs, Logs).

 

[leehuan]

Circle geometry is one of the lobes in 5.3

Not every school gets far enough as to teaching them

 

[davidgoes4wce]

what does lobe mean?

 

[davidgoes4wce]

What does the acronym mean? I've heard of it mentioned in The Dr Max Shur Accelerated texts but forgot what it meant.

 

[leehuan]

I forgot as well. Someone else will know.

 

[davidgoes4wce]

OK I will spill the beans, I think he would be a bit too busy to read this forum (my student) he studies at Newington College.

 

[davidgoes4wce]

What's your guys impressions of Newington?

 

[leehuan]

Good school.

But it's the same impression I have with any schools ranked above 350. It's just a school

 

[Drongoski]

My impression is Newington is a reasonably good but expensive private school - about same level as Barker, Riverview, Ravenswood, the King's School and PLC Croydon but not academically in the same league as Sydney Grammar. For the IB programme, I'm surprised that MLC Burwood has had quite a few outstanding years lately.