Jump to content


Is TT Geometry rigorous?

Recommended Posts

I may have to bring dd home from ps and need to find something quickly for Geometry.


I'm looking at these:

Jacob's (have it, don't think my dd will like it)

CD (love Dana Moseley, not impressed with the text)

TT (like the samples online, but have heard very negative things about the algebra series)


Holt 1991/92




I'm leaning towards TT, but am wondering if it's rigorous enough. Dd will likely go into some type of science field.


I'd be interested in your impressions of any of these curricula, and if you have suggestions for others, I'd like those too.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

We've used a couple of these. I think the problems we encountered were based not on the quality of the program but on the fit with the student. Ds#2 tried CD geometry and we found that he doesn't do well with media based programs. He finds it a waste of time. He's a great math student so understanding isn't the problem - he just wanted to move more quickly. So we tried LOF. Definitely not his cup o' tea. It was too "verbal" and not enough structure. It was difficult to go back into the text part to determine where something had been taught. So we decided on Jacob's geometry. It's going fine, nothing stellar, but I also think this kid is more algebra oriented and less geometry oriented.


Now with ds#3 I'm using MUS geometry. It's definitely a just the facts type of program but it appears to cover all the bases well esp. with the Honor's supplement. It doesn't teach "formal" proofs but does proofy type problems similar to NEM (without all the formal writing). This is a good fit for ds#3 who needs short lessons with repetition. This son will be the science major (of some type). Although math is more difficult for him than for his brothers, he will work hard when he knows he needs something in order to get to a goal.


DS#4 is using Art of Problem Solving Geometry and we are absolutely loving it (well as much as a 13 yob can love anything academic). He's a great math student so he isn't having any problems.


That's it for our geometry experience (except ds#1 who did NEM and TTC geometry).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DD used TT Geometry and loved it. I don't know if I would call it rigorous, but she did have to do proofs though. She went through the course fairly quickly, but did learn a lot and she felt it helped her with the geometry questions on the SAT. She never used the lectures CDs even though we had them. She found it easier to just read the lesson.


DS started this year by using TT Geometry, but really didn't do well. He found the lectures tedious and said he would drift off. He said he often discovered mid-lesson that he had not paid attention to the lecture and would have to go back over the lesson. This is my non-mathy child. He asked for me to teach him, so we are using Jacob's Geometry now which is going much better for him because this child needs one-on-one contact for math.


I've been very impressed with Jacob's so far. DS is really learning by discovery and the text stirs his imagination. He's learning by applying concepts to solve problems/puzzles and I think this method helps him to understand better. Often the problems are amusing and this definitely helps to engage him.


I guess whether TT works depends on what your child's learning style is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TT has worked very well for my oldest two - including their Geometry. My oldest never used the lectures - didn't need them. He just finished in the 97th percentile on the ACT (has gone through TT Pre-Calc and is currently in CD Calc without any problems with understanding). On the ACT he didn't miss any of the easy Alg questions - missed 2 on the Advanced Alg/Coord Geo - missed 3 on the Trig/Plane Geometry section - overall score of 32 for Math - lower than the 35 he usually got on practice tests, but such is life.


TT is much better than the public school program our school uses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dd likes LoF, which is also on your list, but she likes the story and learns well by reading. We haven't seen the TT Geometry, but since we didn't like TT Algebra 1, we aren't looking at it. We have a couple of rigourous Geometry programs, but they're not on your list. The one I prefer is the one that has a Teacher's Guide and a full Answer Key, and that's the one by Birkhoff & Beatley & you can get it from the American Mathematical Society (ie, you can get it quickly.) Dd is doing LoF as her main one, but I believe in supplementing regardless of program, so we tried an old one that is good, but it didn't have enough support for me as a teacher because it is old.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My ds is very poor at math. We are now thinking he just isn't on the abstract level of cognitive development--he can plug in formulas and such, but doesn't truly grasp some concepts.

We used TT for Geom and honestly, it was not a good fit for him. I would not call it rigorous, but they do a lot of proofs and logical thinking, and even though the proofs are rather simple, it was a bad fit for ds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My son has been using TT Geometry after a failed attempt to use Jacobs 3rd edition and a half hearted attempt using Jacobs 2nd edition.


TT is very straightforward. It is easy for me to "teach" in that all I have to do is field questions. If we get stuck, I just have him look at the video for whatever it is. However, I think that the "algebra on shapes" aspect of TT could be a bit more rigorous.


Jacobs 3rd edition is a beautiful book. You can tell that he really put a lot of thought into it. The problems are interesting and just about always have a real world overlay. My son has dyslexia and this was a huge problem for him. I was constantly having to interpret what the problem was "really saying" for him and I ended up having to do the problem set myself the night before (which can take a really long time because there are frequently 50+ problems) to be able to do this quickly.


Jacobs 2nd edition was a much better fit because he doesn't present every single problem in the form of a real world example. It's like a more traditional geometry text in that it is mostly straight geometry with shapes that aren't superimposed on some real world background. The teaching is in the problem sets and you really need to have your student do all of the problems to get the most out of the book. Just about every problem set has proofs to do.


Just this past week I had the opportunity to compare a chapter of TT directly with Jacobs 2nd edition. My son failed a TT test so we did the equivalent chapter in Jacobs. Jacobs expects the student to have a firm grasp of algebra 1 and in that several of the problems require understanding how to deal with square roots and factoring polynomials. It is possible that TT doesn't have this because it hasn't been covered in TT algebra 1 but I'm not sure if this is true.


If I had to do it over again, I would probably pick Jacobs 2nd edition and I will most likely be using it with my younger son. It simply requires more thought on the part of the student and it is very good at showing the patterns in geometry. I like how he incorporates algebra into the geometry problems. Overall, I believe it is a stronger text than TT.


But I have to say that TT is *really* easy to use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Create New...