What are the kids using for geometry these days?

[Karenciavo]

Chalkdust is working great for Algebra, but it's so expensive :tongue_smilie: Can I get some Geometry suggestions please? The college at the top of our list these days offers Euclidean Geometry. I don't even know the difference between Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometry. Should I get the Heath translation of Euclid's Elements?

 

Thank you.

[Lori D.]

Found a used 2nd edition for $50. There is a newer 3rd edition out, as well. Here's a link to a recent thread in which the differences between the 2nd and 3rd editions are discussed: http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16706

 

Jacobs is vey gentle, and pretty much self-teaching. It is proof-based rather than focused on area, circles, etc. Jacobs is Euclidean geometry, with one chapter on non-Euclidean (just a sort of overview of other types of geometry). I believe the standard for high school geometry is Euclidean, with non-Euclidean and other types of geometry being college level courses for math and science fields.

 

- Math U See has a geometry program (not proof based), that deals with planes, angles, area, volume, solids, etc. Has a teaching DVD, with instruction/explanation for each lesson.

 

- Bob Jones University Press has a 2nd and a 3rd edition Geometry course; the 3rd edition is biblically-based, with one lesson per chapter relating geometry and Scripture. Proofs focus on congruence of triangles and theorems about quadrilaterals, but also deal with area, circles, space, volume, transformation, symmetry, and similarity.

 

- Saxon incorporates geometry into their upper level programs of Algebra 1 and 2, so Geometry is not a separate course in Saxon.

 

I know there is another Geometry program often used by ladies on this board, but at the moment I can't think of what it is. Hopefully someone else will jump in with more info for you! Also, some ladies use the local community college for the upper level math courses, so that is another option as well -- which can often give your student dual credit (count for both high school and college credit).

 

 

Here are links to two a short Wikipedia articles defining Euclidean and Non-Euclidean Geometry:

 

- Euclidean: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclidean_geometry

- Non-Euclidean: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Euclidean_geometry

 

 

BEST of luck in deciding what route to go! Warmest regards, Lori D.

[teachmom3]

With my two older children, I used UCSMP Geometry. It has a lot of real world application and concentrates on having the student understand the concepts underlying the algorithms, but, on the other hand, perhaps doesn't go into as much depth/breadth as a couple of the other texts.

 

My youngest is currently in the second edition of Jacob's Geometry. I chose the 2nd over the 3rd edition because I wanted something more proof-intensive. I didn't use UCSMP with him because, although he did great with UCSMP Algebra, he found the geometry text too difficult for him to understand.

 

I also own Lial's and Chalkdust's geometry texts--although I didn't have either when the older two were doing geometry. I didn't choose Lial's for the youngest because it was written for college students and he has some difficulties with reading comprehension. Chalkdust Geometry (in contrast to, say, their algebra 2 text) seemed to jump around too much, at least for my youngest.

 

JMHO!

[Susie-Knits]

the traditional course (not the one just out) but definitely understand about the price. Of course, used from swapboard is cheaper than new. "langfam" had a post back around Jan timeframe about finding the Larson's books and dvds (also done with mosely) on amazon for an amazing price. I think she found PreCalc and Calc but maybe there is Geometry to be found too.

 

We are hooked on Chalkdust! haha

Susie

[8filltheheart]

I have used both Chalkdust and Jacobs (2nd ed). I was going to use Solomonvich next yr via Regina Coeli until I realized I had to do it in conjunction with their bio (which is Apologia which I didn't want to use).

 

I have made the decision to go with Chalkdust instead of Jacobs for next yr.

 

BTW.....thanks for your kind words on the other thread. :)

[Kareni]

My daughter used Jacobs' 2nd edition when she took Geometry.

 

One other possibility which I haven't seen mentioned is Teaching Textbooks.

 

Regards,

Kareni

[Suzybearybake]

We decided to go with Teaching Textbooks. My ds is 12 and started Saxon Algebra II. He needed more work on some of the geometry problems so we thought that this would give him the extra practice and still be taught independently. We looked at Chalkdust and Videotext but they were too expensive. We had the Jacobs text but I didn't get it and I heard that the video lesson are difficult to watch because he stands in front of the board.

[SusanAR]

I purchased Chalkdust but switched to Jacob's. Jacob's goes more in depth than CD, and I really like taking two days to cover most concepts (i.e. set I and II)- It seems to help retention. Jacob's also contains more proofs.

 

SusanAR

[Julie in GA]

The 3rd edition of Jacobs includes SAT questions, and other enhancements. You can find used copies for cheap on Amazon (mine was $46). I recommend the 3rd edition.

[sweetbaby]

We are using MUS. Loving it so far.

[Myrtle]

Chalkdust is working great for Algebra, but it's so expensive :tongue_smilie: Can I get some Geometry suggestions please? The college at the top of our list these days offers Euclidean Geometry. I don't even know the difference between Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometry. Should I get the Heath translation of Euclid's Elements?

 

Thank you.

 

Euclidean geometry is any space in which the angles of triangles add up to 180 degrees. Analytic geometry is when this is taught using graphs and algebra (otherwise known as Cartesian or coordinate geometry) and synthetic geometry is when it's taught using proofs. So analytic and synthetic refer to the way that geometry is taught rather than the object of study.

 

In common parlance this distinction is ignored and "Euclidean" is used when the speaker probably just means synthetic.

 

Euclidean geometry is contrasted with fancy geometries where triangles have more or less than 180 degrees and parallel lines have clandestine meetings. It's usually found under appellations containing too many syllables and courses with too many prerequisites and isn't studied unless you take high level math classes in college. However, a liberal arts major intrigued by the idea of sci-fi geometry would enjoy reading this book about the history of ideas and people that led to nonEuclidean geometries.

 

Heath's translation of Euclid was interesting to me because of its historical value and opened my eyes as to the range and nature of Greek mathematical inquiry but it didn't have "textbook" value to me. It took me months to read it.

 

Evidentally today one does not "need" to learn proofs in order to get by in life, balance a checkbook, get a degree in engineering, or even perform successfully on the SAT although the role of proofs in math as an academic field is central, if not defining.

 

Unfortunately, popular interest in proofs in high school math is usually limited to the activity of proving theorems for their own sake ignoring the epistemological concerns that motivates the activity to begin with. (I believe in this is the essence of Solomonivich's criticisms of modern geometry texts.) A well written geometry book taught by a skilled teacher would include a more philosophical discussion about the properties of axiomatic systems in general, i.e. why one can't derive a postulate or why one even should care, and segues into some very interesting topics in philosophy and history which then takes synthetic geometry as currently "practiced" out of the realm of mindless formalism and technical training and transforms it into liberal education.

[Karenciavo]

A well written geometry book taught by a skilled teacher would include a more philosophical discussion about the properties of axiomatic systems in general, i.e. why one can't derive a postulate or why one even should care, and segues into some very interesting topics in philosophy and history which then takes synthetic geometry as currently "practiced" out of the realm of mindless formalism and technical training and transforms it into liberal education.

 

Hence, the reason Plato is said to have written, " Let no one ignorant of geometry enter within these walls"? (I'm asking) So, do you know of such a teacher online or a text that someone as ignorant on the subject as I am should read/work through?

 

Thank you Myrtle.

[Myrtle]

Hence, the reason Plato is said to have written, " Let no one ignorant of geometry enter within these walls"? (I'm asking) So, do you know of such a teacher online or a text that someone as ignorant on the subject as I am should read/work through?

 

Thank you Myrtle.

 

Possibly this:

 

Classical Co-op

 

The only other book I can think of is Birkhoff's Geometry republished by the American Mathematical Society, originally published in the 20s and 30s judging by the outdated photographs.

 

[1] Basic Geometry: Manual for Teachers - George David Birkhoff and Ralph Beatley - AMS, 1959, 160 pp., Softcover, ISBN-10: 0-8218-2692-1, ISBN-13: 978-0-8218-2692-8, List: US$10,

 

[2] Basic Geometry: Third Edition - George David Birkhoff and Ralph Beatley - AMS, 1959, 294 pp., Hardcover, ISBN-10: 0-8218-2101-6, ISBN-13: 978-0-8218-2101-5, List: US$39,

 

[3] Basic Geometry: Answer Book - George David Birkhoff and Ralph Beatley - AMS, 1963, 76 pp., Softcover, ISBN-10: 0-8284-0162-4, ISBN-13: 978-0-8284-0162-3, List: US$9,

 

We liked the modern topics in Solomonivich but felt that our 7th grader would need more practice than was offered in the problem sets. Kiselev's Geometry has very good content but requires a teacher already familiar with synthetic geometry. Here is a review of Kiselev in the MAA. Even though you might not be able to use this book, it will give you insight into what characteristics a professional mathematician wants to see in a high school math book. (Alexander Bogomolny wrote the review)

 

We're planning on using a 1964 Moise and Downs, but I get access to the philosophical side of math outside the text and someone to help me with a solution if I get stuck.

[Alyce]

I would say that I don't care for either one a lot but my children needed to have someone else teach them as I can't and they needed things broken down to basics. I think MUS is a better program than TT but it is light on proofs. TT is heavy on proofs but light in some other areas. There weren't enough practice problems in TT and my son is now telling me he's not sure how much he can remember. If I had it to do over again I should have stuck to MUS.