In The Great White North wrote: >So, if you plan on doing the bio - chem - phys order for high school, do not use Campbell's Biology. Well… we are doing bio first, and this is not a problem for our kids with Campbell/Reece Biology. I’ll admit that I would have preferred the phys-chem-bio sequence, both because it seems more logical, and because, as a physicist, I would give priority to physics. However, our kids take a lot more easily to biology than to physics. Campbell/Reece Biology does not seem to presuppose any significant knowledge of physics at all that I can see. They do have a brief discussion of conservation of energy and increasing entropy and of free energy, but at a very elementary, introductory level that does not seem to assume any significant amount of prior knowledge. We are now in the most “chemical” part of the book, cellular respiration and photosynthesis, and our kids are not finding the chemistry overwhelming. I don’t see any of the hard-core stuff you would expect in a high-school chem class: e.g., detailed calculations involving equilibrium constants, etc. The book certainly does assume that the student is comfortable with the idea that “C” denotes a carbon atom, “O” an oxygen atom, etc., that atoms fit together in definite ways to form molecules, that molecules have definite 3-D shapes, etc. However, at least out here in California, that is considered grade-school material, even in the public schools. The reading level is definitely higher than “Harry Potter” or “Hunger Games,” but not as difficult as most of the textbooks I used in college. What may be a real challenge for some students is grasping the mechanistic, reductionist perspective that is central to modern science: that perspective is certainly integral to the book. As I tell my kids, “A rosebush is a machine.” From the perspective of modern science, all that is happening inside a rosebush is electrons, protons, and neutrons pushing and pulling on each other: a rosebush has no purpose, no goals, no ultimate end. That perspective tends to be very alien to most people, but, for better or worse, you do not “get” modern science unless you grasp that perspective. Incidentally, I am not making any larger philosophical or theological point here: like a number of my fellow physicists, I actually doubt that this mechanistic perspective can explain consciousness. But, scientists are pretty sure it does explain a rosebush. In any case, Reece/ Campbell Biology is widely available in libraries, so I’d certainly encourage anyone to look at a copy before actually buying it. Dave

Holly, Our kids are accelerated a bit: we've been using Life of Fred through Calculus. I consider LoF Calculus to be just an intro: i.e., it is not full preparation for the AP calc exam. Otherwise, I think LoF is a very solid program (and I am a theoretical physicist and so have high standards for math programs). Probably the main question with LoF is whether your kids like the silly little narratives (which my kids loved) or whether they find the little stories silly and want a more "mature" book. The other issue is that LoF is rather short on drill, so, depending on the student, you may want to supplement it with additional problems or impose additional review. Dave Miller in Sacramento

Sebastian asked me: >Was there something in the Concepts and Connections text you found problematic or do you just find Biology a better fit? No, I don’t know anything wrong with “Concepts and Connectionsâ€: I suppose the biggest thing is that, when I started flipping through and reading a paragraph here and there in “Biology,†it just struck me that I would really like to read this book, even if I weren’t homeschooling our kids. So, if “Biology†was appealing to me, I figured it might appeal to the kids, too, which turns out to be the case. By the way, before buying a book and really committing to it, I do always try to get a library copy and show it to the kids and get their feedback: they do not necessarily get the final say, but if they really hate a book at first glance, I suspect it might not work out too well as a textbook for them. So, I rarely impose a book on them unless they agree it is at least okay. And, I hope to find books that they think are really great. Dave

dancer67, We are signed up with a (happily extremely laissez-faire) charter school, so they bought the book at our request: I believe they got it through Barnes and Noble. You should be able to get it through either amazon or Barnes and Noble. Like almost all higher-level texts, however, it is quite expensive, so if you are shelling out your own money, I’d recommend looking for used copies of recent editions on amazon, abebooks, etc., or even seeing if your local public or university library has a copy that you can just keep renewing indefinitely. I’m doing the infinite-renewal thing with several books from the local university library: it is $100 a year for a library card, which more than pays for itself. If anyone needs the books, the library will recall them, of course, but that rarely happens. I actually started doing that with Campbell/Reece “Biology†(both our local county library and the local state university library own “Biology†as well as “Concepts and Connectionsâ€), but, since the charter school had some funds for books, I eventually decided to just ask them to get a new copy. I’ll add that I have bought quite a few used books very cheaply on abebooks and amazon: in many cases, we find that we actually prefer the earlier edition (e.g., I like the 1997 edition of Bulliett’s “The Earth and Its Peoples†a lot better than the later edition). I should also add that the paperbound edition of “Essential Biology with Physiology†is not well bound: it falls apart unless you are very careful (obviously, the hardbound “Biology†is sturdier). As to whether a parent can teach “Biology†on his or her own, well, I’m the stay-at-home parent and I know physics, not biology – I have to confess that I managed to avoid all biology classes after junior high! So, I am reading the book, learning a lot, and then quizzing the kids orally on each chapter as we all move along. The book is pretty well-structured in terms of “concept checks,†end of chapter summaries and quizzes, etc., all with answers in the back of the book. When we finish the book, I’ll have the kids review it and then subject themselves to an interrogation by my wife the biologist. My wife has done the dissections with the kids, since we physicists don’t like icky/squishy things – give me some nice, clean, antiseptic electronics, please! So, yes, I think Campbell/Reece “Biology†is at least as amenable to a parent’s teaching as most textbooks; however, it does require the parent to actually learn some of the biology for himself or herself, at least unless they know a lot more biology than I do. I actually told my Ph.D. biologist wife some cell biology the other day that she did not know, so I am feeling a bit empowered reading the book, personally. Dave

Sebastian, Well, our approach is really not to have discrete classes where we “do†the subject and then are through with it: I like to have the kids read some good books on a subject, get familiar with it, and then finally go through a solid textbook and really buckle down, do the problems, etc. So, we started in grade school reading Mahlon Hoagland’s “The Way Life Works†and, a couple years later, his expanded “textbookish†version, “Exploring the Way Life Works.†“The Way Life Works†is really a wonderful book for grade-school/middle-school kids – it’s still my kids’ favorite science book that we have used to date (although one of the kids says that Reece/Campbell “Biology†is nearly as good). Hoagland, who is a big name in cell biology (e.g., co-discoverer of transfer RNA), teamed up with an illustrator to produce engaging but really informative cartoons to illustrate the book: the book is really eccentric, but extremely appealing and educational and, obviously, scientifically accurate. We also, during grade school, read some good kids’ library books aimed at grade-school/middle-school kids, such as Rosen Pub. Groups’ “Library of Cells†series. Then, in upper-grade-school/early middle school, the kids read both the BSCS “Blue Book†and also Reece/Campbell’s “Essential Biology with Physiology,†again just as casual reading without being tested or being assigned any problems from the books. We also watched Steve Nowicki's great video lecture series on biology from the Teaching Company (we got the video series through the library, but if you do buy from the Teaching Company, make sure you do it during one of their frequent 70 % off sales!). And, now, finally, we are doing biology “for real†with Reece/Campbell “Biology.†So, yeah, it might be a mistake to use Reece/Campbell “Biology†as the first serious biology book a student ever reads: personally, I think it is always good, in any subject, to be exposed to several good books to get a “feel†for a subject. But, if a student has some good prior exposure to biology, so that, for example, “mitochondria,†“RNA,†etc. are not completely unfamiliar terms, then I think Reece/Campbell “Biology†can serve as the text for the first really serious biology course. Although it is basically an AP text, Reece/Campbell “Biology†really is well-written: it’s about as unintimidating as a book can be that is conveying serious science. I just wish I could find a physics or chemistry book that is nearly as well-written! Sorry for the long-winded reply, but I always have trouble explaining briefly the approach that we’re taking. Dave

I’d strongly recommend that you consider Campbell and Reece’s “Biology.†My wife has a Ph.D. in biology and I have a Ph.D. in physics, both from Stanford. Based on our own knowledge of science, we found this to be the best biology textbook available. After making our choice, I checked around and found out that Campbell and Reece is widely considered the gold standard: e.g., three of the four sample syllabi provided by the College Board at the AP Biology site recommend Campbell and Reece ( http://apcentral.collegeboard.com/apc/public/courses/teachers_corner/2117.html ), and it is also the textbook recommended at the University of California’s APBio open courseware site ( http://www.ucopenaccess.org/course/view.php?id=67 ). In fact, the preface says that it is now the “most widely used college textbook in the sciences†altogether. Let me emphasize that we ourselves chose the book on our own before we knew how widely used it was in colleges, AP classes, etc. It simply is a clear, accurate, well-written book that is interesting to read. I’m learning things myself from the book, and there is some stuff in there that my wife does not know, since it’s been discovered since she got her Ph.D. By the way, do *not* get “Biology†confused with other books by Campbell and Reece. There are (at least) two other biology textbooks by these authors with similar titles: “Essential Biology†and “Biology: Concepts and Connections,†which are at a lower level. If you decide that “Biology†is at too high a level (though I really do not think it is too difficult for a reasonably good high-school student), then you could try Campbell and Reece’s “Essential Biology with Physiology,†which is also a good book (make sure, though, to get the “with Physiology†edition: the plain “Essential Biology†is a truncated version). My own suspicion as to why the Campbell/Reece book is better than most other biology textbooks is that Jane Reece, who was the official “writing consultant,†also has a Ph.D. from U. of California in biology and did a postdoc at Stanford. Therefore, Reece can polish the writing style while still being focused on the actual science. If you do not like any of the Reece/Campbell books, the BSCS “Blue Book†(technically known as “BSCS Biology: A Molecular Approach,†but usually referred to as the “Blue Bookâ€) is also a good text. I would however stay away from the other BSCS texts, such as the “Green Book†(full title “BSCS Biology: An Ecological Approachâ€). Hope this helps. Dave Miller in Sacramento