Geometry: Jacobs versus TT?

[Cabertmom]

I'm trying to decide about geometry for next year and was all set to use Jacobs until I just discovered Teaching Textbooks. Now I'm having a hard time deciding.

 

Here's our situation. Last year, my husband was teaching our 15- and 13-year-olds algebra, but a move and job change later, he doesn't have the time. Also, they only got halfway through the book last year. I did well in geometry in college a million years ago (the only course I had to take as a French major), but math in high school was my nemesis, and I just struggled through algebra the whole time. Anyway, long story short, I am no help with their algebra. My 13-year-old gets it pretty well (with some help from Grandma), but it takes him a good 2 hours every day. My 15-year-old goes to him for help. She frequently and he occasionally end up in tears of frustration over it, but we should manage to finish it this year, and they will have made great strides not only in the knowledge of algebra but also in perseverance, assuming we all survive.

 

All that said, is anyone able to compare and recommend Jacobs or the Teaching Textbook Geometry given our situation?

 

Does anybody not like TT? I only find very positive things said about it. I just wish it didn't cost so very much.

 

:bigear:

[Tiramisu]

The two-hours for math and the frustration you mention really speak volumes to me. I may be completely wrong and hope someone else chimes in, but this is my first thought: Whatever program you choose, make sure it's the right one.;)

 

My dd also can take 2 hours for math and get really frustrated and end up in tears, though standardized testing shows she's actually good at math and her grades are usually very good on the work we do at home.:confused:

 

Through my limited experience, I think dc like you describe might really get frustrated with Jacobs (unless it just really happens to be their cup of tea), especially without someone there everyday who can walk them through it. We dropped Jacobs for TT so I am somewhat biased.

 

TT is very straight forward, compared to Jacobs which uses a discovery approach. You have the benefit of the lectures and having every problem worked out; however there's no print solution manual so it can get really hard for the parent to help without putting the solution disc into the computer--which can be really annoying. TT has everything you need for geometry; it's solid.

 

Now, TT has about three proofs every day and they can take time for a slower working student; they may also trigger frustration depending on how your dc is wired. We wound up nearly stopping the proofs during the last quarter of the year. We just reached the point that I realized that benefit she would get from doing the proofs didn't balance out the time and frustration. I believe it's important to intellectual development to provide a reasonable challenge to our dc, but we don't want to frustrate them to the point that they will hate math forever and have it affect their other work.

 

If I were you, reading your description of your dc, I would also look at MUS.

 

Hope this helps a bit.:)

[Julie in MN]

I'm trying to decide about geometry for next year and was all set to use Jacobs until I just discovered Teaching Textbooks. Now I'm having a hard time deciding.

BTDT -- I bought both (both new, too!). Oh well, cheaper than the piano lessons I used to pay for...

 

Here's our situation. Last year, my husband was teaching our 15- and 13-year-olds algebra, but a move and job change later, he doesn't have the time. Also, they only got halfway through the book last year.

I'm assuming you are finishing Algebra this year, before moving on to geometry? That's important, I think. Also, algebra for a 13yo is sometimes too abstract. Depends, of course.

 

 

Okay, I bought both, but what I decided to use was Jacobs. I still have TT "just in case." The reasons I chose Jacobs:

 

- Lots of "real life" examples of everything from architecture to math puzzles. No more "this will never matter" allowed from ds!

 

- Lots of lesson plans available. I'm using the MFW lesson plans here:

http://www.mfwbooks.com/math712.htm

With occasional tweaking from here:

http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?t=116059

And even some ideas from Callahan (I went ahead and got his videos, too :tongue_smilie: ):

http://shop.askdrcallahan.com/products/Geometry-DVD-Set.html

 

- Strong (but not overwhelming) component of proofs throughout, alongside instruction leading kids through them. There are also 2nd edition proofs still available on Jacobs' website:

http://bcs.whfreeman.com/geometry3e/default.asp?s=&n=&i=&v=&o=&ns=0&uid=0&rau=0

 

- I really like the Algebra reviews in Jacobs. They aren't long (kind of a break for ds) but they build until he is reviewing lots of skills. (Woops, TT might have these, too, I forget.)

 

- I was intrigued by exposing my ds to a different style of teacher, who uses the problems to lead you through math thinking, rather than teaching everything in the lesson.

 

 

Why I didn't choose TT:

- It felt like too many components to wade thru. I don't know, I think my box has 5 things or so in it. This is probably funny from someone who has so many schedules to look at, added the videos, etc. But my ds would likely only do one thing or the other, etc. For my ds's side, I wanted to streamline.

 

- It felt like it might be a little too slow in areas for my ds, who is on a math team & such. He doesn't have a lot of patience with being taught things he thinks he "already knows." :(

 

- Reading through the text, it didn't seem to be as challenging even in the challenging parts, such as proofs. This is a very subjective statement.

 

- The fully worked out answer keys were a big draw, but I realized that having them on DVD was not really my cup of tea. I use worked out answer keys (e.g. in Math Relief) for correcting and giving my ds hints, and not so much for having him go through the whole thing again. Jacobs answer keys are pretty complete, and he's available by email, but that was a big worry for me.

 

 

 

At times over this semester (first semester finishes in 2 weeks), I've considered switching back to TT. The biggest reason I considered that, I am ashamed to say, is that I have a good math student who isn't getting all A's in Jacobs. I hate to have his transcript look like he isn't a good math student, when he is. The biggest reason I haven't switched is that I think my particular son needs to learn the things that Jacobs is teaching him. He needs to learn to think through things more carefully. He needs to learn to follow math rules, at least sometimes. He needs to be willing to do things that he thinks are "obvious" on occasion - I didn't make him do simplistic problems, but he does need to do the obvious steps in some proofs. He needs to get into the head of a teacher who is trying to lead you through math thinking, not just teaching the lesson and having you copy it. This ds was raised on Singapore and does lots in his head and likes to just study a math problem until he can say, "Ah hah, this is IT!" He can't do that with Jacobs.

 

I guess I'm working this all out in my own mind, too :) Next year, we'll go back to Algebra II and he'll be happy (and my life will be easier!), but I think this year will have been worthy.

 

Both programs are good. Both have great teacher support (Mr. Jacobs answers my emails, and I think TT does the same). So that's my story,

Julie

Edited January 8, 2011 by Julie in MN
Still thinking

[RENEEinVA]

We use Chalkdust Geometry (my older dd used Jacob's for algebra and it was a disaster...she's not a big reader which could have been part of the issue). I'm not very familiar with TT Geometry.

[EKS]

We started out with high hopes with the 3rd edition of Jacobs. After two chapters I found it a nightmare to teach and my son needed every single problem explained for him before he could attempt it. So, ever faithful to Jacobs, I switched to the 2nd edition. It was better, but things were still difficult. So I jumped ship and went to TT Geometry. It was straightforward (mostly) and it does cover everything in the Jacobs book. My son was able to learn from it, and I was able to support him when he needed it. For example, he needed lots of help learning how to write proofs. So for maybe two chapters, I helped him with every single proof until he could do it on his own.

 

People are always saying that TT is less rigorous than other programs. I haven't used their algebra program, but the geometry *did* cover everything it was supposed to (if comparing it to Jacobs is a guide). The major difference I found was that Jacobs expected students using his book to have a higher knowledge of algebra that the TT book did. This makes sense as the TT Algebra I book doesn't go as far into algebra as Jacobs Algebra does. Once, toward the end of the book, my son did horribly on a TT test. So we redid the chapter using the Jacobs book. It was very similar, with the exception of the algebra needed (and this only came up a few times). Luckily, my son had used Jacobs Algebra and was fine with it.

 

My son *hated* the TT lectures. He claimed that the guy doing them sounded like he was talking to three year olds. Frankly, he does. I don't know if that is just the way he talks, but it sounds like he is trying to keep people from being afraid of the material he is teaching. But other than that, my son had a successful geometry experience with TT. It wasn't an honors experience, but it got the job done.

[Cabertmom]

Thank you all for such great, thoughtful answers. I guess I'm still torn. I would love to hear more about whether those with experience think that TT is sufficiently rigorous, both for doing well on the SAT and for college-level math preparation. This is further complicated by the fact that my 15-year-old dd states that she is not interested in a math or science career while my 13-year-old ds is currently interested in programming as a potential career. Nonetheless, I would like to use the same math program for both of them.

 

We will be finishing Jacobs Algebra this year before going on to geometry, and I really like the way Jacobs thinks. Before starting it, we compared it extensively with Saxon and really preferred it.

 

Julie, what do you plan to do for Algebra II?

 

Any thoughts about Ask Dr. Callahan as a supplement to Jacobs Geometry? Is there anything else out there that effectively "teaches" using the Jacobs textbook?

[Storm Bay]

Between these two, I vote for Jacob's hands down. I am not impressed with TT at all, based on what we have of it, and I would never make my dc listen to any lectures that made them feel the way you describe. TT is not rigourous in any sense of the word; my eldest did the book only for a while and hated it. She didnt like Jacob's either, so we didn't continue with that. However, of the two Jacob's is defnitely better written, IMO. I personally do not find Algebra books written by mathematicians to be as good, although that doesn't mean that all of the books written by mathematicians are good.

 

However, this is not what I'd do for a 13 yo in my house. What I do with my dc, who tend to be done with Algebra 1 by 12 or 13, is to have them do Algebra 1 again with an entirely different program, and my dc tend to be strong in math. This doesn't mean that it never takes them a long time.

 

If you are going to use a DVD instructor, then I'd look into Lial's, Chalkdust (there is a cheaper way to get it) or something like that. My dd did Lial's just by reading the book, but she is one of those dc who can learn most of her math from the book. You also may wish to look at the Key to Algebra books to review your Algebra before moving onto Geometry, or to do LOF if your ds likes the style (it is a silly story that is humourous, but is excellent at relating math to RL, getting dc to think, etc. Not a lot of problems, though.)

 

My dd, who did fine with Algebra 1 the first time (90 percent average), did far better the second time around when it came to really understanding Algebra, the theory, solving problems, etc. She was also 13 when she started it for the second time around. She used an old Dolciani, but that doesn't come with a DVD. She later did LOF Geometry, but I supplemented it with something more traditional.

 

My middle one did LOF Beginning Algebra the first time through and is now doing Foerster's.

 

What I wouldn't do if I were in your shoes is to move onto any Geometry text; a solid foundation in Algebra is of paramount importance if you are going to do any type of proofs, and is important in general.

Edited January 9, 2011 by Karin

[Julie in MN]

Julie, what do you plan to do for Algebra II?

 

Any thoughts about Ask Dr. Callahan as a supplement to Jacobs Geometry? Is there anything else out there that effectively "teaches" using the Jacobs textbook?

 

I use Math Relief for Algebra I & II. I am a big fan.

 

I have the Callahan videos for Jacobs Geometry. My son likes them, and that's why I got them -- I knew he'd like seeing a guy talk once in a while. My ds even likes the goofy random facts that are inserted between segments. And for me, Callahan gives a couple of extra ideas on how to test, etc.

 

But they are not like Math Relief or Chalkdust or TT. They are small tidbits about each chapter, probably the thing that Callahan thought needed clarifying in the lesson.

 

The set-up of Callahan was difficult for us to get used to -- each lesson isn't clearly marked and they are grouped, so the best way is to watch them on the computer so you can move to the correct spot. I could clarify some more, but not sure it's necessary if you don't have them on hand.

 

Julie

[Julie in MN]

However, this is not what I'd do for a 13 yo in my house. What I do with my dc, who tend to be done with Algebra 1 by 12 or 13, is to have them do Algebra 1 again with an entirely different program, and my dc tend to be strong in math. This doesn't mean that it never takes them a long time.

 

If you are going to use a DVD instructor, then I'd look into Lial's, Chalkdust (there is a cheaper way to get it) or something like that. My dd did Lial's just by reading the book, but she is one of those dc who can learn most of her math from the book. You also may wish to look at the Key to Algebra books to review your Algebra before moving onto Geometry, or to do LOF if your ds likes the style (it is a silly story that is humourous, but is excellent at relating math to RL, getting dc to think, etc. Not a lot of problems, though.)

 

My dd, who did fine with Algebra 1 the first time (90 percent average), did far better the second time around when it came to really understanding Algebra, the theory, solving problems, etc. She was also 13 when she started it for the second time around. She used an old Dolciani, but that doesn't come with a DVD. She later did LOF Geometry, but I supplemented it with something more traditional.

 

My middle one did LOF Beginning Algebra the first time through and is now doing Foerster's.

 

Karin,

I totally agree about the importance of algebra.

 

I'm wondering if you think your kids would have benefited from two algebra programs if they had been older when they did algebra the first time? To me, algebra goes SO much better if the kid is older, maybe 14/8th grade?

 

For us, I'm hoping the Jacobs algebra reviews will be good enough, rather than spending more time on Algebra I again, but I'm going to keep your idea in mind.

 

Julie

[Storm Bay]

Karin,

I totally agree about the importance of algebra.

 

I'm wondering if you think your kids would have benefited from two algebra programs if they had been older when they did algebra the first time? To me, algebra goes SO much better if the kid is older, maybe 14/8th grade?

 

For us, I'm hoping the Jacobs algebra reviews will be good enough, rather than spending more time on Algebra I again, but I'm going to keep your idea in mind.

 

Julie

 

Yes, I think they would have, although perhaps to a lesser exent. There is more than one way to do and to look at Algebra. Dd used two Geometry texts and read some of a third one. She didn't do all of both main texts, but did do all of LOF. My eldest did well with Algebra the first time, but not well enough for the scholarships she was saying that she wanted. I discovered the other benefits of redoing it as she did it, paticularly since we did the 1965 Doliciani, which she liked.

 

I'm glad that they have been ready early so that we can do it twice. If my ds does it at 14 the first time (unlikely, since he's already a full grade ahead in math, but it could happen since he learns so differently than my dds do) I will use 2 books. I might not have the luxury to do it twice through if that happens, though, so would have to use one as a supplement to let him see it another way.

[abbeyej]

We're doing Jacobs with Derek Owens as a teacher, and it's working great for us. I doubt we'd be doing as well with Jacobs on our own, but Derek's notes and videos and feedback on homework and tests has really made this year a breeze -- for ds and for me. It's definitely more expensive (online option is $58/month), but for us it's worth it. We definitely plan to stick with Derek next year for Algebra 2 (and probably a science course as well).

 

TT was a good choice for my younger sister who really struggled with math and *needed* a less rigorous course. But it was not an appealing option for me for ds...

[Storm Bay]

TT was a good choice for my younger sister who really struggled with math and *needed* a less rigorous course. But it was not an appealing option for me for ds...

Right--TT can be a good choice. I didn't add that my middle one is doing it as a second book because she likes the humour and understands it. However, she is quite mathy, so I don't use just TT.

[EKS]

Between these two, I vote for Jacob's hands down. I am not impressed with TT at all, based on what we have of it, and I would never make my dc listen to any lectures that made them feel the way you describe. TT is not rigourous in any sense of the word; my eldest did the book only for a while and hated it. She didnt like Jacob's either, so we didn't continue with that. However, of the two Jacob's is defnitely better written, IMO. I personally do not find Algebra books written by mathematicians to be as good, although that doesn't mean that all of the books written by mathematicians are good.

 

However, this is not what I'd do for a 13 yo in my house. What I do with my dc, who tend to be done with Algebra 1 by 12 or 13, is to have them do Algebra 1 again with an entirely different program, and my dc tend to be strong in math. This doesn't mean that it never takes them a long time.

 

If you are going to use a DVD instructor, then I'd look into Lial's, Chalkdust (there is a cheaper way to get it) or something like that. My dd did Lial's just by reading the book, but she is one of those dc who can learn most of her math from the book. You also may wish to look at the Key to Algebra books to review your Algebra before moving onto Geometry, or to do LOF if your ds likes the style (it is a silly story that is humourous, but is excellent at relating math to RL, getting dc to think, etc. Not a lot of problems, though.)

 

My dd, who did fine with Algebra 1 the first time (90 percent average), did far better the second time around when it came to really understanding Algebra, the theory, solving problems, etc. She was also 13 when she started it for the second time around. She used an old Dolciani, but that doesn't come with a DVD. She later did LOF Geometry, but I supplemented it with something more traditional.

 

My middle one did LOF Beginning Algebra the first time through and is now doing Foerster's.

 

What I wouldn't do if I were in your shoes is to move onto any Geometry text; a solid foundation in Algebra is of paramount importance if you are going to do any type of proofs, and is important in general.

 

Have you used either of the geometry programs? While the TT algebra sequence leaves a lot to be desired, the geometry program was virtually identical to Jacobs in scope and sequence, with the exception of the level of algebra needed. Jacobs Algebra is *very* different from the 3rd edition of his geometry and from what I have gathered, TT Geometry is an anomaly in the TT sequence.

[Cabertmom]

Have you used either of the geometry programs? While the TT algebra sequence leaves a lot to be desired, the geometry program was virtually identical to Jacobs in scope and sequence, with the exception of the level of algebra needed. Jacobs Algebra is *very* different from the 3rd edition of his geometry and from what I have gathered, TT Geometry is an anomaly in the TT sequence.

 

I have not used any geometry program with my children yet. FYI, I should mention that it isn't like they are not getting the algebra--just that they are getting it with much hair pulling and over a long period of time. My dd has an 86 average, and my son has a 90 average. I definitely would not want them to go through algebra I again for many reasons.

 

Could you please go into more detail comparing Jacobs Geometry with Jacobs Algebra? Would you consider it better or worse? Easier or harder? More or less engaging? Also, how does it compare with other geometry books in terms of giving a good understanding of proofs?

 

Also, when you say that TT is an anomaly among their books, how do you mean? Do you think it is better than their other products?

 

I am open to other possibilities. It's just that those two top my list right now. I guess I am intrigued by Life of Fred but find it hard to take seriously. I did look at the table of contents and wonder what is left out in order to get through chapters on 14 dimensions, LOL.

Edited January 9, 2011 by Cabertmom

[Julie in MN]

We're doing Jacobs with Derek Owens as a teacher, and it's working great for us.

 

Thanks for that link. I'm going to keep it for future classes that are less comfortable for me (pre-calculus, physics).

 

Julie

[Tiramisu]

Also, when you say that TT is an anomaly among their books, how do you mean? Do you think it is better than their other products?

 

 

TT's algebra scope and sequence is generally considered "behind," or delayed, in that they may not cover the same concepts that other algebra programs cover at the same level. For example, their algebra 2 does not cover things that many other programs would cover in algebra 2, but instead they reserve it for TT Pre-Calc.

 

However, many students benefit greatly from the explanations in TT regardless of how a particular level might be named, so I don't think that's exactly something to get hung up on. On the other hand, some on these boards have said problems in TT are not as challenging as those in some other programs.

 

When it comes to geometry, though, the coverage *IS* the same as a standard geometry program.

 

May I gently say something? If math is taking your dc two-hours with hair-pulling, I wouldn't be completely convinced that they have algebra 1 down even with good grades. I'm only saying that because I've been there. Really, I have. You may feel you need to keep going with your 15 year old; that's perfectly understandable. Your 13 year old, on the other hand, may truly benefit from more time. You may decide to do geometry now for the sake of keeping them on the same track if that works best for your lifestyle, but you may want to back up with him later and do algebra 1 over again for a really solid foundation. FWIW, I think geometry is not as important as algebra in the long-run.

 

From a mom who thinks her dd would have been better off doing 2 years of algebra 1.:tongue_smilie:

[Cabertmom]

I appreciate the advice and will definitely think about it. I guess I feel like my 13-year-old is actually the one who is understanding it better. He ends up explaining a lot to my 15-year-old daughter.

 

By the way, I love the quote from St. John of the Cross. He and St. Teresa of Avila top my very long list of favorite saints.

 

More insights are most welcome.

[Storm Bay]

Have you used either of the geometry programs? While the TT algebra sequence leaves a lot to be desired, the geometry program was virtually identical to Jacobs in scope and sequence, with the exception of the level of algebra needed. Jacobs Algebra is *very* different from the 3rd edition of his geometry and from what I have gathered, TT Geometry is an anomaly in the TT sequence.

 

No, I was not pleased with the Algebra we have nor the other books I looked at, and when I looked back at my post, forgot to specify exactly what "based on what we have" meant. I hadn't realized that the Geometry is an anomaly in scope and sequence.

 

However, many students benefit greatly from the explanations in TT regardless of how a particular level might be named, so I don't think that's exactly something to get hung up on. On the other hand, some on these boards have said problems in TT are not as challenging as those in some other programs.

 

When it comes to geometry, though, the coverage *IS* the same as a standard geometry program.

 

:tongue_smilie:

 

Yes, the TT explanations can be helpful, which is why my middle dc is using it, just not alone. Even though TT eventually catches up, I am not as impressed by the way they teach the Algebra. I do like the humour in it, and that it is approachable. TT isn't completely bad vs another math program being completely good.

 

As for the coverage, do you mean the scope and sequence, or the scope, sequence, depth, teaching, etc? I don't mean this in a bad way, just curious. We are ardent fans of LOF, but I felt a need to supplement the proofs in Geometry because it didn't require students to name specific Algebra postulates in the proofs. One other shortcoming, at least for us with my dd's goals, was the lack of paragraph proofs. So, even though I think LOF has many strong points TT doesn't (but it's certainly not going to work for everyone, nor are all teens going to enjoy the style or story), it's not perfect--no book is.

 

Another important point, that has been brought up in past threads, is that each of us has to find what works for our dc and our dc's goals. Since this is high school, I didn't have my eldest go very deep and use the hardest things we could find in every subject. She's not highly motivated in very many subjects, but likes math now and is mathy. If I had a dc who struggled with math (instead of with spelling, motivation, late reading, etc, depending on which dc of mine we're talking about) I would search for what helped that dc understand. If TT were the only thing that clicked, I'd use it, but, knowing me, I'd probably supplement with MUS or something else, because that's how we have approached math for my younger two (combining.)

 

Choose what works for you and don't be intimidated or swayed by those who don't like what you choose, because in math there will always be people who dislike what you use, and sometimes vehemently dislike it. I am happy to hear that TT Geometry has a full scope and sequence, although based on Algebra 1, I prefer the way Jacob's presents it. However, now that I've heard that the latest Jacob's Geometry is different, I will have to back away from that until I get an opportunity to look at it.

Edited January 10, 2011 by Karin

[Tiramisu]

As for the coverage, do you mean the scope and sequence, or the scope, sequence, depth, teaching, etc? I don't mean this in a bad way, just curious. We are ardent fans of LOF, but I felt a need to supplement the proofs in Geometry because it didn't require students to name specific Algebra postulates in the proofs. One other shortcoming, at least for us with my dd's goals, was the lack of paragraph proofs. So, even though I think LOF has many strong points TT doesn't (but it's certainly not going to work for everyone, nor are all teens going to enjoy the style or story), it's not perfect--no book is.

 

Another important point, that has been brought up in past threads, is that each of us has to find what works for our dc and our dc's goals. Since this is high school, I didn't have my eldest go very deep and use the hardest things we could find in every subject. She's not highly motivated in very many subjects, but likes math now and is mathy. If I had a dc who struggled with math (instead of with spelling, motivation, late reading, etc, depending on which dc of mine we're talking about) I would search for what helped that dc understand. If TT were the only thing that clicked, I'd use it, but, knowing me, I'd probably supplement with MUS or something else, because that's how we have approached math for my younger two (combining.)

 

Choose what works for you and don't be intimidated or swayed by those who don't like what you choose, because in math there will always be people who dislike what you use, and sometimes vehemently dislike it.

 

Okay, the *coverage* of TT Geometry compared to other programs....

 

These are just my thoughts, and perhaps someone like Creekland who is a real math person can add or take away from the following.

 

Scope: same

 

Sequence: I've seen different sequences among the *few* geometry books I've looked at, but there's nothing that strikes me as particularly different about the TT sequence

 

Depth: if by depth we were to look at things like more complicated proofs and more use of algebra, TT may be seen as having less depth. I'm not an expert but just extrapolating from posts I've read on this board, and perhaps you mean something more than this by *depth*.

 

Teaching: Well, there are those TT lectures for every lesson so that would be *teaching* that not all other programs would have. I would say the lectures don't expect students to be math whizzes and present things in a gentle, incremental way without making great leaps. I don't know how that compares to other video lecture programs. The TT lectures are not terribly long either. I've heard great things about Chalkdust teaching but I know dd would have a hard time maintaining her attention for a long lecture. Bob Jones also seems to have a geometry program people like but the regular class length video lectures would be a drawback for us.

 

I really wish I had learned the lesson earlier to stick with what works and disregard the nay-sayers. I was so hung up on giving dd the best-possible, most rigorous education that I wasn't focused enough on HER. Now I think I've finally gotten it hammered into my head that the "most rigorous" isn't always the "best possible". But, guess what? Overall, dd's rather good at math IRL, as compared to some of the truly shining stars you read about on these forums, who I actually haven't met any of the like IRL. And, FWIW, I'm thankful there's something here for everyone.

[nancy in nj]

My daughter is strong in math, and we used TT Geometry last year in 9th grade, having successfully completed Chalkdust Algebra II in 8th grade. TT Geometry is certainly not inadequate especially given the circumstances noted by the original poster. Using TT for Geometry is NOT going to prevent a student from going on to higher math either in highschool or college. This year my daughter has returned to Chalkdust for Precalculus without a problem.

 

I do agree with others that the TT Algebra sequence is behind what is typical, although I do not think it is as woeful as some portray. Sometimes it is better for a student to learn the basic concepts very thoroughly rather than trying to tackle a more difficult text that causes frustration and tears. My daughter had used TT for Algebra I in 7th grade and transitioned to Chalkdust Algebra II in 8th grade without any problem at all. While she may not have been exposed to the quadratic formula in Algebra I, she was solid in her understanding of quadratic equations and therefore deriving the quadratic formula and using it in Algebra II was just not an issue, nor were any of the more difficult topics.

[Julie in MN]

If my ds does it at 14 the first time (unlikely, since he's already a full grade ahead in math, but it could happen since he learns so differently than my dds do) I will use 2 books. I might not have the luxury to do it twice through if that happens, though, so would have to use one as a supplement to let him see it another way.

 

Aaak you guys are making me wonder if I should have ds try TT for second semester (in about 2 weeks), since I already paid for it and now I like the idea of exposure to two teachers (I always do that in history), plus folks are saying it actually does cover the same material. I don't regret choosing Jacobs for this son this past semester, but hmmm

[creekland]

My daughter is strong in math, and we used TT Geometry last year in 9th grade, having successfully completed Chalkdust Algebra II in 8th grade. TT Geometry is certainly not inadequate especially given the circumstances noted by the original poster. Using TT for Geometry is NOT going to prevent a student from going on to higher math either in highschool or college. This year my daughter has returned to Chalkdust for Precalculus without a problem.

 

I do agree with others that the TT Algebra sequence is behind what is typical, although I do not think it is as woeful as some portray. Sometimes it is better for a student to learn the basic concepts very thoroughly rather than trying to tackle a more difficult text that causes frustration and tears. My daughter had used TT for Algebra I in 7th grade and transitioned to Chalkdust Algebra II in 8th grade without any problem at all. While she may not have been exposed to the quadratic formula in Algebra I, she was solid in her understanding of quadratic equations and therefore deriving the quadratic formula and using it in Algebra II was just not an issue, nor were any of the more difficult topics.

 

:iagree: I could easily have written this post.

 

From the limited data my 3 boys can provide, 2 have finished through Pre-Calc with TT and gone immediately into Calc with no issues whatsoever and scoring among the highest seen on the placement test at the cc (as per their advisor). They've also scored 97th and 99th percentiles respectively on the ACT. Both are quick to grasp math. Neither missed any algebra questions on any standardized test they have taken.

 

My youngest is non-mathy. Period. He struggles with math and had a poor foundation in ps (till 4th grade). I had to catch him up, and even then he struggles. After working somewhat together with TT Alg 1 (together on latter chapters anyway - after he tried them himself), he scored in the 85% on an 8th grade standardized test last year. He would likely have floundered with anything more rigorous. At the moment with him he's about to start CPM Geometry in ps next semester (DON'T do CPM math!!!). I'd love to assist him with TT Geometry, but we sold ours a couple years back. Right now I'm debating buying the books new or trying BJU Geometry as I can get a decently priced used set for that. I'm still in the decision phase.

 

Sons #1 and 3 hated the lectures and seldom, if ever, watched them. The book is the same, so watching lectures is not necessary. Son #2 loved the lectures and considered the teacher his "best one ever in math." Each student is different in that respect.

 

I'm a TT fan - as long as it fits the student.

[Cabertmom]

Thank you for the insights. I guess I would like to find one program that is sufficient unto itself for the most part. Isn't it funny? I think we probably all feel more comfortable using multiple resources in subjects where we feel more capable.

 

Also, while it is sometimes just necessary to decide that something isn't working and switch, it's expensive and time consuming too.

 

Based on the various comments, I'm still torn between Jacobs Algebra (maybe with Ask Dr. Callahan to help) or Teaching Textbooks. Of those of you who have used TT, how many actually used the video portion? I find myself wondering if the perfect combination would be just the book plus the video solutions manual rather than the video itself.

 

Here's what the consensus seems to be from this thread and a few others:

1. Jacobs is thorough and requires (and hopefully teaches) real mathematical thinking.

2. Some people love it, and some people find it a real meltdown-causing struggle to get through.

3. TT is more straightforward.

4. For some people, TT has been a breath of fresh air and has made high school geometry doable for non-mathy students.

5. For other people, it seems like the proofs and other problems are not as challenging as Jacobs even though the scope and sequence is basically the same.

6. Many people think that TT overall is rather slow to cover things in their algebra and precalculus sequence, but their geometry program seems to cover the same things that other geometry programs cover.

7. It is of great importance to have a thorough understanding of algebra. One math professor said that when his calculus students had problems, it was usually because they had problems with algebra, not because they had problems with calculus.

8. Regardless of which math program one chooses for high school, SAT math questions really have more to do with logical thinking and figuring out math than they do with more advanced algebra or geometry. Therefore, it is of great importance to use an SAT prep course rather than just depending on the math program if one hopes to do well in the math portion.

9. Several people mentioned the option of choosing one program but supplementing it with another.

 

Am I missing anything?

[Julie in MN]

That's a good summary. The only things I'd add are the Derek Owens videos mentioned by abbeyej for Jacobs (he offers a cheaper option to just use the videos and not the grading), and not to under-emphasize the importance of basic geometry (not proofs) on the SAT/ACT.

[Tiramisu]

Thank you for the insights. I guess I would like to find one program that is sufficient unto itself for the most part. Isn't it funny? I think we probably all feel more comfortable using multiple resources in subjects where we feel more capable.

 

Also, while it is sometimes just necessary to decide that something isn't working and switch, it's expensive and time consuming too.

 

Based on the various comments, I'm still torn between Jacobs Algebra (maybe with Ask Dr. Callahan to help) or Teaching Textbooks. Of those of you who have used TT, how many actually used the video portion? I find myself wondering if the perfect combination would be just the book plus the video solutions manual rather than the video itself.

 

Here's what the consensus seems to be from this thread and a few others:

1. Jacobs is thorough and requires (and hopefully teaches) real mathematical thinking.

2. Some people love it, and some people find it a real meltdown-causing struggle to get through.

3. TT is more straightforward.

4. For some people, TT has been a breath of fresh air and has made high school geometry doable for non-mathy students.

5. For other people, it seems like the proofs and other problems are not as challenging as Jacobs even though the scope and sequence is basically the same.

6. Many people think that TT overall is rather slow to cover things in their algebra and precalculus sequence, but their geometry program seems to cover the same things that other geometry programs cover.

7. It is of great importance to have a thorough understanding of algebra. One math professor said that when his calculus students had problems, it was usually because they had problems with algebra, not because they had problems with calculus.

8. Regardless of which math program one chooses for high school, SAT math questions really have more to do with logical thinking and figuring out math than they do with more advanced algebra or geometry. Therefore, it is of great importance to use an SAT prep course rather than just depending on the math program if one hopes to do well in the math portion.

9. Several people mentioned the option of choosing one program but supplementing it with another.

 

Am I missing anything?

 

Excellent synopsis. Your points bring back memories of many posts I've read over the years in making my own math decisions, besides what we have touched on in this thread.:)

 

If it makes you feel better...I don't think I or any of my dc could ever manage more than one math program at a time after about the 3rd grade level. I am naturally scattered, and I need methods that bring out the best in me and not the worst::willy_nilly:

[Rebecca VA]

We are using TT Geometry at our house. My 8th grader is only on Lesson 9, so I can't tell you all of the pros and cons, but I'm pleased with it so far. It starts out very simply -- teaching inductive reasoning the first day and deductive reasoning the next -- and builds from there. The CD-ROM lessons are short and simple, and I like the way the teacher reinforces his lectures by writing his sentences on the board, the way a classroom teacher would do. The student can thus learn through his ears and his eyes.

 

TT Geometry is making a previously-dreaded subject very pleasant indeed, with little input needed from me.

[Cabertmom]

That's a good summary. The only things I'd add are the Derek Owens videos mentioned by abbeyej for Jacobs (he offers a cheaper option to just use the videos and not the grading), and not to under-emphasize the importance of basic geometry (not proofs) on the SAT/ACT.

 

Thanks, Julie. I went to Derek Owens website but couldn't find just the videos. I did like the sample video.

[Julie in MN]

Thanks, Julie. I went to Derek Owens website but couldn't find just the videos. I did like the sample video.

 

Well, I emailed him after that post and he told me that he would offer the videos, notes, and I think answer key? for $29 a month. That seems like it might work for us, and I'm going to sample it with ds. I can't say whether this is a standard price, but feel free to mention that I gave you the info if you think it will help you to find out about it, too.

 

Julie

[Storm Bay]

Depth: if by depth we were to look at things like more complicated proofs and more use of algebra, TT may be seen as having less depth. I'm not an expert but just extrapolating from posts I've read on this board, and perhaps you mean something more than this by *depth*.

 

Thanks. I would think that harder proofs that require more steps could also lead to dc having to think in more depth to prove them.

 

Teaching: Well, there are those TT lectures for every lesson so that would be *teaching* that not all other programs would have. I would say the lectures don't expect students to be math whizzes and present things in a gentle, incremental way without making great leaps. I don't know how that compares to other video lecture programs.

That's what I would think, based on the book. We couldn't afford the lectures when we bought it and dd learns math by reading or looking at the examples most of the time.

I really wish I had learned the lesson earlier to stick with what works and disregard the nay-sayers. I was so hung up on giving dd the best-possible, most rigorous education that I wasn't focused enough on HER. Now I think I've finally gotten it hammered into my head that the "most rigorous" isn't always the "best possible". But, guess what? Overall, dd's rather good at math IRL, as compared to some of the truly shining stars you read about on these forums, who I actually haven't met any of the like IRL. And, FWIW, I'm thankful there's something here for everyone.

 

:001_smile: I've done the same thing in subjects before. I haven't so much changed from what's working too much as switched to something that doesn't work well for my dc. Eventually I learned that some people usually or always have suggestions that work for at least one of my dc, but I haven't got that mastered for all three of them! Plus, I have had a few strong opinions change based on good arguments here, and those have generally been for the better.

 

I have also gone through the same thing with rigour. My dc have the ability, but that doesn't mean that it's best for them right now because they need time to explore their interests and they don't learn well if they feel that everything is being pushed on them. It's been frustrating at times, but I don't have dc who respond well to the "you do this because I say so" approach if it's applied to too many areas. Also, they then have time to devote to their nonacademic, nonextracurriular organized activity interests.

 

My daughter is strong in math, and we used TT Geometry last year in 9th grade, having successfully completed Chalkdust Algebra II in 8th grade. TT Geometry is certainly not inadequate especially given the circumstances noted by the original poster. Using TT for Geometry is NOT going to prevent a student from going on to higher math either in highschool or college. This year my daughter has returned to Chalkdust for Precalculus without a problem.

Thanks!

 

I do agree with others that the TT Algebra sequence is behind what is typical, although I do not think it is as woeful as some portray. Sometimes it is better for a student to learn the basic concepts very thoroughly rather than trying to tackle a more difficult text that causes frustration and tears.

:iagree: As for how woeful it may or may not be, that's going to vary with the student, too. I also think we have to consider our dc where they want to go in life, because that ought to be factored into our educational decisions. We also already own several Geometry texts, but from now on any dc that do Geometry at home are going to do so with a teacher, a tutor or someone who can grade their proofs, so that will change everything.

[Cabertmom]

I have also gone through the same thing with rigour. My dc have the ability, but that doesn't mean that it's best for them right now because they need time to explore their interests and they don't learn well if they feel that everything is being pushed on them. It's been frustrating at times, but I don't have dc who respond well to the "you do this because I say so" approach if it's applied to too many areas. Also, they then have time to devote to their nonacademic, nonextracurriular organized activity interests.

 

Karen, this is an excellent point. I keep thinking of C. S. Lewis' education. As a teenager, he went to live with a tutor and had the opportunity to pursue his own interests, read a lot in Latin, and ponder a great deal. I'm also reminded of the Colfax family who wrote Homeschooling for Excellence. Their "method" if it can even be called such was to work hard on their ranch all day and then spend time in the evenings reading great books, often based on recommendations of one of the brothers to the other.

 

I guess this is a much larger question than geometry, but I have to wonder if the expectations of education today are too much breadth and too much expected depth in every subject to the detriment of real depth in 1 or 2 areas of deep interest. I don't know. I guess I'm thinking outloud.

 

All that said, at this point we may be leaning more toward TT at the moment. I'm glad I have time to decide.

[Storm Bay]

Karin, this is an excellent point. I keep thinking of C. S. Lewis' education. As a teenager, he went to live with a tutor and had the opportunity to pursue his own interests, read a lot in Latin, and ponder a great deal. I'm also reminded of the Colfax family who wrote Homeschooling for Excellence. Their "method" if it can even be called such was to work hard on their ranch all day and then spend time in the evenings reading great books, often based on recommendations of one of the brothers to the other.

 

I guess this is a much larger question than geometry, but I have to wonder if the expectations of education today are too much breadth and too much expected depth in every subject to the detriment of real depth in 1 or 2 areas of deep interest. I don't know. I guess I'm thinking outloud.

 

All that said, at this point we may be leaning more toward TT at the moment. I'm glad I have time to decide.

 

My mom's dad had his post gr 8 education in a similar manner to the Colfax family out of necessity, and he became a highly literate man.

 

It's a tough call, because the pressure is on to be sure we don't fail our dc and none of us knows the future.

[Cabertmom]

Yes, exactly. I don't have any answers and, in spite of a longing for a Lewis/Edison/Einstein/Colfax type education, I haven't the courage for the experiment, so our homeschooling looks far more typical. Perhaps by the time I get to this point with my 5th child, I'll have the courage to be more free form...or not. :001_huh:

[Cabertmom]

I have an idea that might solve the dilemma for my children, and I'm wondering if anyone with experience would be in a position to help for all of our common good (admittedly mine included). Of those of you who are in a position to compare TT and Jacobs Geometry, are there particular areas where you think TT should go deeper? If so, would it be possible to expand on those areas a bit by adding some lessons from Jacobs?

 

I know this completely goes against my previous statement of wanting only one program, but it could work to combine minimally if someone with much greater knowledge of math than I have was able to say something like this, "After doing lesson 15 of TT, your children can learn more about that particular topic by doing chapter 5, lesson 2, set 3 in Jacobs." These numbers have no basis in reality--just a thought.

 

I find the simplicity and straightforward nature and handholding nature of TT very appealing, but I don't want to short change their education, so this might be a good option. I don't have the necessary knowledge to know when a particular lesson in TT might not be enough.