Coroneos or Terry Lee for 4U? (1 Viewer)

[kenpai]

Which one is the better textbook overall to assist with study? Pros and cons/information about the textbooks would be appreciated

 

[leehuan]

Before you made your post, have you checked this thread? It was stickied to be readily accessible.

 

[BLIT2014]

Depends on the topic.

Can you afford to get both?

 

[kenpai]

I could afford to get both, but out of curiosity, what are the strongest topics in both books? Also to add, I already have cambridge and nsm but nsm does not seem so promising in terms of questions.

 

[leehuan]

A word on Cambridge (since I actually never used either of the other two, except for Coroneo's 100 integrals)

It's basically a stronger version of MIF in the 4U syllabus. You can actually learn quite a bit out of it, but don't treat it as your main textbook. The questions are only moderate in depth. (MIF is, of course, light)

 

[kenpai]

HAHA nice MIF and Cambridge. Anyhow, what opinions do you hold on Terry Lee/Coroneos?

 

[leehuan]

It is much stronger than MIF though

Like I said, I didn't use either textbook. However from what I was told, Terry Lee's questions jump to the deep end of the course very quickly (i.e. difficulty escalates). Content is good I believe; just be careful in the exercises.

 

[JAMLO]

Personally i believe Terry lee is strong at preparing you for exam style questions and reinforces the concept of the topics in different ways however i find coroneos is kind of repetitive and its more like drilling exercises. I really recommend doing ALL the integration section in Terry Lee as it will toughen you up for later mechanics.

 

[leehuan]

Good thing about my teacher was that he actually showed us how to do the mechanics proofs on the board. (The cliche examples, that is.)

Like we're 4U, it made perfect sense. But it lightened the amount of workload we had to figure out ourselves by a bit.

 

[kenpai]

Sweet thanks guys, wish all the best when you guys receive your marks!

 

[turntaker]

Coroneos is really good for integration and complex numbers. However I wouldn't only rely on that. As for terry Lee I have never used it.

A combination of textbook such as Cambridge + coroneos/terry Lee is a good choice.

 

[Carrotsticks]

The best publicly available Extension 2 book, in my opinions, is the new Fitzpatrick.

If you can afford to get both Coroneos and T. Lee, you may as well just buy the Fitzpatrick book + Solutions book.

 

[turntaker]

The best publicly available Extension 2 book, in my opinions, is the new Fitzpatrick.

If you can afford to get both Coroneos and T. Lee, you may as well just buy the Fitzpatrick book + Solutions book.

The old one was pretty good from memory right?

 

[Carrotsticks]

The old one was pretty good from memory right?

It was terrible.

 

[turntaker]

It was terrible.

Lol. I guess I am pretty bad at ext2 so my judgement might not be correct.

 

[dan964]

The new fitzpatrick is average; I don't rave about it (not that much a fan as Carrotsticks is). It does have some good exercises; (I find the MC questions are pointless; and too out of place); its mechanics section is good; as is conics. The rest is average. Complex numbers is the only section I would definitely avoid in the new Fitzpatrick; as it is too simplistic from memory (like MIF simplistic). (It is actually written by Bob Aus; but Fitzpatrick; as my teacher used to say; tended to put Q2 as the hardest; this still happens in the old ext 1 which is a fairly solid book; and there are still questions that made it from the old book; that were ridiculous.

The book has mostly cleared errors; as it is completely written in some sections. (There was only one section that was worth going to in the old book anyway)

Terry Lee is a good 4U book to have. Patel is good for the summaries; not the exercises; (I personally like the format). Cambridge [2u/ext 1] is good in general [but terrible for ext 2] Coroneous is good stuff too; especially for complex numbers I would highly recommend; especially if you want to do well in ext 2 (font is hard to read). Mixed thoughts about Couchman [ext 1] and the other books available for ext 1/ext 2. (There is no Couchman for ext 2)

*On second thoughts, the Cambridge ext 2 looks terrible. It is MIF quality. Edits made in lieu of replies. All good

 

[Carrotsticks]

The new fitzpatrick is average; I don't rave about it (not that much a fan as Carrotsticks is). It does have some good exercises; (I find the MC questions are pointless; and too out of place); its mechanics section is good; as is conics. The rest is average. Complex numbers is the only section I would definitely avoid in the new Fitzpatrick; as it is too simplistic from memory (like MIF simplistic). (It is actually written by Bob Aus; but Fitzpatrick; as my teacher used to say; tended to put Q2 as the hardest; this still happens in the old ext 1 which is a fairly solid book; and there are still questions that made it from the old book; that were ridiculous.

The book has mostly cleared errors; as it is completely written in some sections. (There was only one section that was worth going to in the old book anyway)

Terry Lee is a good 4U book to have. Patel is good for the summaries; not the exercises; (I personally like the format). Cambridge is good in general; although it can be a bit of a mixed bag. Coroneous is good stuff too; especially for complex numbers I would highly recommend; especially if you want to do well in ext 2 (font is hard to read). Mixed thoughts about Couchman and the other books available.

I hate to be negative, but if you think that the Extension 2 Cambridge (Arnold, I presume) is 'good in general', as well as mentioning Couchman for Extension 2 (there is no Extension 2 Couchman book), then I think your opinion on this is to be taken with a kilo of salt.

 

[Paradoxica]

The new fitzpatrick is average; I don't rave about it (not that much a fan as Carrotsticks is). It does have some good exercises; (I find the MC questions are pointless; and too out of place); its mechanics section is good; as is conics. The rest is average. Complex numbers is the only section I would definitely avoid in the new Fitzpatrick; as it is too simplistic from memory (like MIF simplistic). (It is actually written by Bob Aus; but Fitzpatrick; as my teacher used to say; tended to put Q2 as the hardest; this still happens in the old ext 1 which is a fairly solid book; and there are still questions that made it from the old book; that were ridiculous.

The book has mostly cleared errors; as it is completely written in some sections. (There was only one section that was worth going to in the old book anyway)

Terry Lee is a good 4U book to have. Patel is good for the summaries; not the exercises; (I personally like the format). Cambridge is good in general; although it can be a bit of a mixed bag. Coroneous is good stuff too; especially for complex numbers I would highly recommend; especially if you want to do well in ext 2 (font is hard to read). Mixed thoughts about Couchman and the other books available.

Cambridge is terrible. It's not even half as good as the Year 12 3U textbook. The exercises don't have extensions and are severely lacking in variety.

 

[DatAtarLyfe]

Cambridge is terrible. It's not even half as good as the Year 12 3U textbook. The exercises don't have extensions and are severely lacking in variety.

I second this. Cambridge and the old fitz 4u were a joke

 

[dan964]

I hate to be negative, but if you think that the Extension 2 Cambridge (Arnold, I presume) is 'good in general', as well as mentioning Couchman for Extension 2 (there is no Extension 2 Couchman book), then I think your opinion on this is to be taken with a kilo of salt.

All good fixed. I think the ext 1 is good in general; (well at least from its looks and structure); have mixed thoughts about ext 1 couchman; mostly because I know very little about it, except name, and that it was used occasionally in class; (I have mixed thoughts about the other ext 1/2 textbooks not mentioned if any e.g. Cambridge Checkpoints is rubbish though I will say that; Success is mixed, and I don't trust it; Excel is okay, written also by Patel*). I am kind of glad we didn't use the old Fitzpatrick at school. (I think there was only one exercise that we even bothered using in that book just because of its difficulty)

*cannot say if it is good; because I have used it really that much.

(Sorry for that, obviously past 10pm is not a good time for me to post when I mix things up)

There is also this one; which is in the same format as ext 1 cambridge; with the development and extension questions (attached 10% sample below); it looks a lot better version:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7qqLL1dQjASNWJJV3lUNC1PQVU/view?usp=sharing