I'm very late to the thread, but I wanted to comment on these: My understanding is that the A, B and C actually refers to groups of topics within Single-Variable calculus. A - precalculus B - differential and integral calculus C - techniques of integration, infinite series A couple of high schools, I recall, would use these letters in their courses, and for multivariable calculus, they would use the letter D (ie. "Calculus D"). But this is not an offical CB designation, obviously (there is no AP exam in multivariable calculus).

I was a math major in college, and the following is a list of the core (lower division) math courses that all math majors had to take: Calculus I Calculus II Multivariable Calculus Linear Algebra Differential Equations Discrete Mathematics Probability & Statistics The question to the OP is, however, how much of Calculus will her dd "finish"? Will she get through single-variable calculus (Calculus I & II), or will she finish Multivariable Calculus (aka Calculus III) as well? Whatever she has completed, she can go through the rest of list, at whatever pace works for her. 69

I took the AP Music Theory test as a HS sophomore, without taking any class at school. However, at the music school where I took piano lessons, I also had nearly four years of theory (2 years of classes and 2 years of theory private lessons) by the time I took the test. I didn't do any studying for the test proper. I got a 5. The following year, I took the AP Music Lit test (the last year College Board offered it), without any classes, even at the music school. I just read books, listened to records/tapes/CD's, looked at music scores, on my own for a number of years before taking that test. I got a 4. So I guess I'm saying that it's possible for a student to do well on an AP test without taking a class, if he/she is really motivated. 69

Which level of Algebra? Introductory or Intermediate? I assume you want to go with the paperback version of Lial. (This is the version most recommended here.) The most current edition of Lial's paperback version is the 9th. If you need the Introductory Algebra book, here are some ISBN numbers: Textbook: 9780321557131 Annotated Instructor's Edition: 9780321576378 Instructor's Solution Manual: 9780321576385 Student's Solution Manual: 9780321576439 Worksheets for Classroom or Lab Practice: 9780321576491 Videos on DVD: 9780321607812 If you need the Intermediate Algebra book, here are some ISBN numbers: Textbook: 9780321574978 Annotated Instructor's Edition: 9780321576224 Instructor's Solution Manual: 9780321576231 Student's Solution Manual: 9780321576293 Worksheets for Classroom or Lab Practice: 9780321576354 Videos on DVD: 9780321576286 69

Stephanie, I, too, suggest that you take Calculus and the algebra/trig based Physics, and then take the Calculus-based Physics in college. This is what I basically did when I was in school, and I did ok. Regarding your Calculus book inquiry, most major textbooks will have the solutions manual in two versions: the student version, which typically has the worked out answers to the odd-numbered exercises, and the instructor version, which has the worked out answers to all exercises. You mention Chalkdust, and it sounds like that the solutions manual included in their package is the instructor version. If you can navigate through the publisher's website (and I think I have the right one here: http://www.cengage.com/search/showresults.do?Ns=P_CopyRight_Year|1&N=+16+4294922413+4294967225+4294967224+4294967223+4294948181) you'll be able to find all of the student and instructor resources for the various editions of the Larson books. (Yes, there are too many, in my opinion.) The only thing is that I can only find the 8th and 9th editions on the Cengage website, not the 7th (the edition used by Chalkdust). 69

I looked at that catalog again and you are right. That is odd. Your best bet then is to contact the math department at that CC for clarification. 69

:blink: Last time I checked, I was a he. :D 69

Don't be distressed! "College Algebra" and "Pre-Calculus Algebra" are pretty much the same thing. Both are offered to serve different types of students. I found a CC catalog with the courses you listed in your next post, and I found that some programs require "College Algebra" (Athletic Training, Business, Nursing, Pre-Physical Therapy...) and others require "Pre-Calculus Algebra" (Pre-Pharmacy, Pre-Professional Health...) as part of their A.A. transfer plans. If your son is strong in Math, then he should take "Pre-Calculus Algebra" only and skip the "College Algebra". There are a number of high schools that do this; the high school I attended did for one. Back then, students who took honors math had to take double up junior year with "Trigonometry/Analytic Geometry" and "College Algebra" if they wanted to take Calculus senior year. Students who took GT (Gifted & Talented) math courses (like me :D)took a single Precalculus course sophomore year. I'm starting to think that two years of Precalculus make more sense. There is so much material in Precalculus textbooks that there is no way for me to teach it in one year. I wish that the school where I teach would change to a two-year format, but alas, no. We need to increase our enrollment for the AP Calculus AB class, after all... :mad: I think some will argue that some students are not ready to take a Precalculus course in the 11th grade and could benefit from taking it in two years. I myself have seen some students who did fine taking Algebra I 8th grade, Algebra II 9th grade, and Geometry 10th grade, only to flounder in Precalculus 11th grade. There are a number of colleges/universities/community colleges that offer Precalculus in two semester courses: one in College Algebra and one in Trig. Others offer Precalculus in two variants: a two-semester format and an intensive one-semester format. Again, with the amount of material that could be classified as "Precalculus," I think it's justified for colleges to offer it as a two-semester course. (I also hold the notion that 1 year HS course = 1 sem. college course.) 69

I know the question wasn't directed to me, but according to the table of contents (I "clicked-to-see-inside" from the Amazon page), that version has single-variable and multi-variable. Yes, Stewart does have a lot of versions. So does Larson. So does Thomas. And so does other authors. It's quite annoying. 69

Off topic, but this reminded me of a documentary I watched nearly twenty years ago when I was taking Intermediate German 2 at college. Produced right after reunification, the film highlighted differences between East and West. One was foreign language ability. There was a quick interview with a student in the West, whose English was rather good, with little accent. This followed by an interview with an English teacher in the East, whose English was less proficient and heavily accented. My home environment was somewhat bilingual, but I still didn't become proficient in Korean. :D As I've mentioned, I had issues with language growing up. I firmly believe that I will never be proficient in Korean because of what I think is my handicap. Defeatist attitude? Perhaps. Although I'm planning a fourth trip to Korea this summer to continue my language studies, I think I've reached a plateau, and that I probably won't be able to speak much better than I can now. (Then why go to Korea at all? I have relatives there, and I had fun staying there, of course. :D) 69

Which edition? I use the 2007 edition in my classes. I hope you realize that this is not an Algebra I book. This book could be used after Algebra II, either on its own or as part of a Precalculus course. Some people would call this "Algebra III." 69

The amount of time would depend on the language. In the 1970s, the Foreign Service Institute established a scale of "Expected Levels of Absolute Speaking Proficiency in Languages." The languages taught at FSI were divided into four groups, based on the achievement level a student may expect after a certain period of study. If an adult studied for 30 hours a week (yikes!), he/she could reach an "advanced" level of proficiency in 24 weeks (720 hours) if he/she was studying French (a Group I language). However, it would take anywhere from 80-92 weeks (2400-2760 hours) to reach "advanced" proficiency in Chinese (a Group IV language). (See http://www.asdk12.org/depts/world_lang/advocacy/ForeignServiceInst.pdf.) Is it really common to start in HS? I myself started in the 7th grade, and it was pretty much required for all students in the middle school I attended (except for the special needs students). If I had picked the right language, I could have reached level 6 by 12 grade. (I say "the right language," because the language I really wanted to take, German, was not offered in middle school. So I took 2 years of Russian in middle school and 4 years of German in high school. But French and Spanish were offered in both schools, so if I had picked either one of those, I could have reached level 6 by 12th grade.) I can sympathize, although I am considerably older. :glare: I am convinced that I have some sort of language handicap -- being a child of Korean immigrants, I did not learn to speak until I was four, and even then, it was broken English. I spent all of elementary school in Speech Therapy. My parents were told by my 1st grade teacher not to speak Korean to me until my English got better, a huge mistake. I didn't start studying Korean formally until 4 years ago, when I went to Korea for a summer and took an intensive language course at a Korean university. I did this for three straight summers (4 hours a day, 5 days a week, for a 10 week term), and still, my speaking ability isn't much to write home about. Among the four language skills (reading, writing, listening, speaking), I would say that I am best at writing. I second the suggestion for the student to get plenty of opportunities to hear the language spoken. I'm planning on going back to Korea this summer (for a fourth time!) to continue my language studies, and I've found a website where I can download podcasts in Korean to listen to, as preparation. I've also, uhm, acquired (:tongue_smilie:) Korean movies and TV dramas to watch (with English subtitles, of course). 69

I have to disagree. As a math teacher, this certainly does rub me the wrong way. This book is rather poor in my opinion. It is rather lacking in explanations. The material presented is low-level, avoiding even remotely complicated reasoning. A colleague of mine currently teaches the 3rd edition (2007) and she does not like it. (There is also a Precalculus book by 3 of the same authors, of which I am currently using in my Precalculus class. It's also quite lacking, topics are often presented out of order, and the examples are either too hard or too easy.) And while the Calculus book is thin, it is NOT cheap. In fact, the Calculus book is more expensive than the Precalculus book, according to the publisher's catalog. And the Precalculus book is thicker! ---- To answer the OP, I'm rather partial to Larson myself. When I learned Calculus for the 1st time in high school, I used Larson, 3rd edition. (Now it's at the 9th edition.)

A number of reasons: - Because the Lial books are geared towards college remedial classes, the applications and the non-math topics mentioned in the word problems may be at too high of a level for our regular students to understand - Our students have to buy their textbooks, and Lial is more expensive than Holt (even though Holt is thicker!) - I teach in a private school in Maryland, and there is a state book program where the state will buy books for private schools to lend to students (which they can take home). I have asked the department chair if we can do this for the Lial books, but it would be more likely to happen if we get the books for a less number of students (ie. the honors classes only) than more (the regular students). - The format of the Lial books (this is the high-school binding of the paperback series) is a workbook format, and the books would encourage students to write in them, which is what I want to avoid. Particularly if these are state books, I would have to check them at the end of the year to make sure that if there were any pencil marks then they would have to be erased. - We may move towards electronic versions of books in the future, to be put into Tablet PC's or iPads. I know that the Holt books are available in an electronic version (the "Student One Stop" CD), but I don't think the Lial books are. 69

I'm not sure why you are comparing Lial's Algebra 2 (Intermediate Algebra) book with Foerster's Algebra 1 book. If we compare the Algebra 1 books, Lial's Algebra 1 book (Beginning/Introductory Algebra) covers Factoring in Chapter 6, and Quadratics in Chapter 9. I will say this, however: the order of topics in Algebra 1 books have changed since I was in school When I took Algebra 1 in 7th grade, Dolciani was used, and I recall that we did exponents/polynomials/factoring before graphing linear equations. Now, exponents/polynomials/factoring occurs after graphing linear equations. It makes sense, in a way -- put all the topics together that deal with things linear (linear equations/inequalities, graphing lines), before dealing with expressions, equations and functions that are not linear (quadratic, polynomial, rational, radical). ---- I don't have much of an update about my original post. We (the math teachers in our school) are still looking over textbooks. I have talked to the math dept. chair a number of times, and she's not in favor of using Foerster, either, which is a good thing. :D She's also not in favor of Lial, but, truthfully, I'm not either, for our regular Algebra 1 & 2 classes. But since there's a good chance I will be teaching Algebra 1 Honors and Algebra 2 Honors next year, I may be free to use Lial for the honors classes only. As for the regular classes, I'm leaning towards Holt (the series that contains the Geometry book that Jann in TX likes). The One Stop Planner software that she keeps talking about sounds real nice. :drool: And an electronic version is available (the Student One Stop DVD). If only the print textbooks weren't so *#&$^#*&^$*& heavy. :angry: 69