# HS chemistry and physics book recommendations
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hs-chemistry-and-physics-book-recommendations/398739
**Category:** In My Humble Opinion
**Created:** [April 4, 2007, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hs-chemistry-and-physics-book-recommendations/398739 "2007-04-04T17:44:03Z")
**Posts on this page:** 9
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)
#### Post date: [April 4, 2007, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hs-chemistry-and-physics-book-recommendations/398739/1 "2007-04-04T17:44:03Z")
I’m about to take on a fairly large-scale editorial and fact-checking assignment for high school chemistry and physics textbooks. Rather than relying on ye ole noggin (it’s been 10-20 years at least since I’ve done actual coursework) and Google, I’d like to get ready for it by reviewing course books (my HS and college books have shuffled off this mortal coil). Any recommendations for good, comprehensive, and easy-to-follow[sup]\*[/sup] texts?
Thanks,
Rhythm
[sup]\* Easy-to-follow as in they don’t require an instructor’s copy and a wealth of supplemental materials.[/sup]
---
### Author:  [@sunacres](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sunacres)
#### Post date: [April 4, 2007, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hs-chemistry-and-physics-book-recommendations/398739/2 "2007-04-04T18:07:40Z")
Halliday and Resnick is probably _the_ standard text for Physics. I noticed my son’s edition open on the table last week and pulled out mine from 30 years ago. Almost identical.
---
### Author:  [@Kalypso](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalypso)
#### Post date: [April 4, 2007, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hs-chemistry-and-physics-book-recommendations/398739/3 "2007-04-04T18:24:57Z")
For a pleasant high school level “physical picture” read, I adore Hewitt’s “[Conceptual Physics](http://www.amazon.com/Conceptual-Physics-10th-Paul-Hewitt/dp/0805391908/ref=pd_bbs_2/102-6468002-2199321?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1175710497&sr=8-2).”
It was the one I handed my bio major physics students when they just couldn’t understand something, and it usually worked.
---
### Author:  [@gotpasswords](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gotpasswords)
#### Post date: [April 4, 2007, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hs-chemistry-and-physics-book-recommendations/398739/4 "2007-04-04T20:59:32Z")
For the casual Average Joe, [Motion Mountain Physics](http://www.motionmountain.net/text.html) is available as a free (and HUGE) 50 meg pdf file. Poke around their site, and you can also download individual chapters.
It might not be at the same level as Halliday and Resnick, but the price is unbeatable, and it does get revised now and then.
---
### Author:  [@robby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robby)
#### Post date: [April 5, 2007, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hs-chemistry-and-physics-book-recommendations/398739/5 "2007-04-05T15:31:46Z")
Right up my alley! I taught college-level introductory chemistry and physics for 7 years, and had a copy of just about every book on the market.
Physics (“college”-level/non-calculus based): [Physics](http://www.amazon.com/Physics-John-D-Cutnell/dp/0471663158/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-2168833-6243113?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1175786487&sr=1-1), by Cutnell & Johnson. Very good all-around physics book. Good on both the conceptual end and with solving problems. This was the first book that I opened when starting a new topic, before proceeding to the calculus-based books.
Physics (calculus-based): [Physics for Scientists and Engineers](http://www.amazon.com/Physics-Scientists-Engineers-PhysicsNOW-InfoTrac/dp/0534408427/ref=pd_bbs_2/104-2168833-6243113?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1175784937&sr=8-2), by Serway & Jewett.
Physics (calculus-based) runner-up: [Physics for Scientists and Engineers](http://www.amazon.com/Physics-Scientists-Engineers-Extended-Version/dp/0716743892/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-2168833-6243113?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1175785117&sr=8-1) by Tipler and Mosca is not quite as readable as Serway, but is more rigorous, IMHO. I had a copy of the 5th edition when I taught, and used an even earlier edition as a college student over 20 years ago.
I had a copy of Halliday & Resnick as well, and while it was good, I didn’t think it was as quite as good as Serway or Tipler. Note that Serway also has a non-calculus based textbook as well (which was the assigned book for my class). It’s not nearly as good at Cutnell & Johnson, IMHO, as it feels too much like a chopped-up version of Serway’s more advanced textbook above.
Physics (introductory): [Conceptual Physics](http://www.amazon.com/Conceptual-Physics-10th-Paul-Hewitt/dp/0805391908/ref=pd_bbs_2/102-6468002-2199321?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1175710497&sr=8-2), by Paul Hewitt. No question that this is the best conceptual physics book on the market. I regularly used materials from it in the higher-level class that I taught. The book is not very rigorous for calculations (to say the least), but that is not its intent.
Chemistry (college-level): [Chemistry](http://www.amazon.com/Chemistry-Steven-S-Zumdahl/dp/0618610324/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-2168833-6243113?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1175785380&sr=8-1), by Zumdahl.
Chemistry (introductory): [Introductory Chemistry: A Foundation](http://www.amazon.com/Introductory-Chemistry-Fifth-Steven-Zumdahl/dp/0618305017/ref=pd_bbs_sr_3/104-2168833-6243113?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1175785601&sr=1-3), by Zumdahl. (I think this links to the latest edition.)
---
### Author:  [@Typo\_Knig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Knig)
#### Post date: [April 5, 2007, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hs-chemistry-and-physics-book-recommendations/398739/6 "2007-04-05T17:06:27Z")
I’ll add [Schaum’s Outlines](http://www.mhprofessional.com/category/?cat=145) to the list. The explanations are usually very clear, if brief. Schaum’s outlines are filled with solved problems, which are a fabulous learning tool. Not necessarily a substitute for a real textbook, but a **very** good thing to have around.
Wasn’t there an open source type project for textbooks? I’d look it up, but my lunchtime is over.
---
### Author:  [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)
#### Post date: [April 5, 2007, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hs-chemistry-and-physics-book-recommendations/398739/7 "2007-04-05T18:58:59Z")
Thanks!!! I’m really looking forward to dragging old knowledge kicking and screaming to the fore–as well as reading/learning things that I slept through.
---
### Author:  [@Typo\_Knig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Knig)
#### Post date: [April 7, 2007, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hs-chemistry-and-physics-book-recommendations/398739/8 "2007-04-07T23:15:04Z")
I’ve got a couple of additions I wish I posted sooner.
Arnold Arons’ [Teaching Introductory Physics](http://www.amazon.com/Teaching-Introductory-Physics-Arnold-Arons/dp/0471137073/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-4065656-9932048?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1175985532&sr=8-1)
And Dickinson College’s new curricula in physics: [Activity-Based Physics](http://physics.dickinson.edu/~abp_web/abp_homepage.html), [Workshop Physics](http://physics.dickinson.edu/~wp_web/WP_homepage.html), [Explorations in Physics](http://physics.dickinson.edu/~eip_web/EiP_homepage.html)
Disclaimer: I’ve never had the opportunity to use these teaching anyone. All of my teaching experience was when I was in grad school, teaching undergrad labs - not lectures, nor even recitations.
However, I like the idea of using the results of actual research on effective pedagogy, and applying it to teaching physics. Doing what works best empirically is what physics is all about! Teaching physics should also be about doing what works best for the most students, but usually it’s about doing what’s traditional.
Reading Arons’ book reminded me of some of the places I got stuck in intro physics. I had enough math skill to plow forward, but a lot of other students - as bright or even brighter than me - did not. I thought Arons had some very nice explanations of things that often confuse intro physics students. .
I’m sure Dickinson College isn’t the only place that has developed physics curricula based on modern pedagogical research, but it’s the one place I could remember.
I also want to mention Sheila Tobias. She’s researched math anxiety, gender differences in learning sciences, and so forth. A particularly nice experiment of hers (in my opinion) was when she had philosophy professors take a freshman physics course for a summer to see what they learned, and where these intelligent people trained to handle abstract and complex material had problems in a traditional science curriculum. She also did the companion experiment where physical scientists took an English Lit seminar. The one result I remember after the intervening 17+ years: in both classes the instructor thought he was explicitly telling the students what material was important enough to be on the tests. The students - even the senior grad students and professors - did not pick up the hints. The “hints” were buried in differences in teaching style between the sciences and the humanities.
I’m disappointed that Sheila Tobias does not have a Wikipeda page, but here’s the [Amazon search results page](http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b/002-4065656-9932048?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=sheila+tobias&Go.x=0&Go.y=0&Go=Go) for her books. I’m a particular fan of [this book](http://www.amazon.com/Theyre-Not-Dumb-Different-Occasional/dp/0963350404/ref=sr_1_3/002-4065656-9932048?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1175986154&sr=1-3) of hers, about reaching the students who may not learn efficiently under the traditional curriculum.
---
### Author:  [@BobPi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobPi)
#### Post date: [April 7, 2007, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hs-chemistry-and-physics-book-recommendations/398739/9 "2007-04-07T23:26:46Z")
[QUOTE=sunacres]
Halliday and Resnick is probably _the_ standard text for Physics. I noticed my son’s edition open on the table last week and pulled out mine from 30 years ago. Almost identical.
[/QUOTE]
I heartily second that, though I thought they were first year college texts and not for HS. The books are clear and consise and thorough. If the intent is to verify the content of simpler texts, you can trust that H&R has got it right.