Miller Levine vs Campbell Reece Biology Text

[Reefgazer]

I am in the midst of deciding which text to use for DD's honors biology next year and was vaguely leaning toward Miller Levine, based on the recommendations here.  I just received the Miller Levine (on-level) biology text to peruse; color me unimpressed.  Compared to Reece Campbell, the Miller Levine book has less depth in more pages.  Many of the pages are taken up with colorful pictures that add limited educational value to the course, the functioning of countercurrent exchange systems is not explained at all, every step in the Krebs Cycle and Glycolysis is not labelled at all (or glossed over), DNA replication does not distinguish between continuous and discontinuous replication, the mechanism of transpiration in plants is poorly covered, and the treatment of organismal biology is lacking in general.  I still may use that book instead of Reece Campbell, because it has some other features that I really do like, but I was actually pretty surprised that it had so many weaknesses.  But it got me to wondering..... For those of you who have used either Reece Campbell or Miller Levine, what made you choose the book you eventually opted for?  Just curious......

 

ETA:  I am referring to the Campbell Reece Concpets and Connections, not the big honking AP Bio Reece Campbell.

Edited February 9, 2016 by reefgazer

[AEC]

We opted for the ML mostly because the Campbell text was so consistently described as being much more challenging.  This is a first-time through biology for my DC - I assume they'll do AP Bio in 2 years (after a year of Chem) and I felt like having worked from two different texts might be an advantage.

 

So - ML this time, Campbell the next

[Brad S]

We got (an earlier edition) of Campbell and Reece to a large extent because of this nicely laid out course of high school biology:

https://quarksandquirks.wordpress.com/biology-hs-level/

I know that this homeschooler put great care into developing the syllabus.

Edited February 9, 2016 by Brad S

[Mike in SA]

We opted for the ML mostly because the Campbell text was so consistently described as being much more challenging.  This is a first-time through biology for my DC - I assume they'll do AP Bio in 2 years (after a year of Chem) and I felt like having worked from two different texts might be an advantage.

 

So - ML this time, Campbell the next

 

Love the "two different texts" comment. 

 

DS is using C-R, and I can't see how someone could reasonably cover the entire volume in 9 months with mastery (he is going to take 15 months).  That said, it's an excellent text, and seems to cover much more than the AP bio test requires.

 

MIT-OCW uses C-R (which is why we did, too), and has excellent video support for the first half.  You're on your own for the second half, though.

[Luckymama]

Bio is dd's least favorite science. After seeing Campbell when her older sister took AP Bio, I chose M-L (iBooks version) for her.

 

Easy choice for our situation!

[regentrude]

Which Campbell? There are three. The big meaty Biology, the slightly less dense, but still excellent (IMO) Biology:Concepts&Connections, and then the high school level Bio:Exploring Life text. All share similar structure and features, but the difficulty varies greatly.

 

We used Campbell's C&C with DD. DS has absolutely no interest in bio, so we opted for the easier EL text. I prefer Campbell's style and layout to ML. I would, however, not consider the big CR Biology as a hs text except for a student who lives and breathes biology.

Edited February 9, 2016 by regentrude

[Haiku]

We are using ML because I don't feel the need to use an AP-level text for 9th grade biology.

[Reefgazer]

I wasn't clear in my original post, but I was referring to the Campbell Reece that is used for non-majors biology, not the big doorstop that is used for AP classes.  No way would I hand my DD that huge AP text as a ninth grader.  The text I was comparing is on par with the ML text. 

We opted for the ML mostly because the Campbell text was so consistently described as being much more challenging.  This is a first-time through biology for my DC - I assume they'll do AP Bio in 2 years (after a year of Chem) and I felt like having worked from two different texts might be an advantage.

 

So - ML this time, Campbell the next

 

Edited February 9, 2016 by reefgazer

[Reefgazer]

Yes, I poked around this high school course and love how it is laid out.  I will have to update some of the links if I go this route, however.

We got (an earlier edition) of Campbell and Reece to a large extent because of this nicely laid out course of high school biology:

https://quarksandquirks.wordpress.com/biology-hs-level/

I know that this homeschooler put great care into developing the syllabus.

 

Edited February 9, 2016 by reefgazer

[Reefgazer]

I'll have to check this out; I didn't know about this.  Thanks!

Love the "two different texts" comment. 

 

DS is using C-R, and I can't see how someone could reasonably cover the entire volume in 9 months with mastery (he is going to take 15 months).  That said, it's an excellent text, and seems to cover much more than the AP bio test requires.

 

MIT-OCW uses C-R (which is why we did, too), and has excellent video support for the first half.  You're on your own for the second half, though.

 

[Reefgazer]

Yes, I was referring to Concepts and Connections, the book that is most similar to ML.  I actually prefer the layout of ML over C+C.  I was just surprised ML covered so much less depth than C+C, but took a lot more pages to do so.

Which Campbell? There are three. The big meaty Biology, the slightly less dense, but still excellent (IMO) Biology:Concepts&Connections, and then the high school level Bio:Exploring Life text. All share similar structure and features, but the difficulty varies greatly.

 

We used Campbell's C&C with DD. DS has absolutely no interest in bio, so we opted for the easier EL text. I prefer Campbell's style and layout to ML. I would, however, not consider the big CR Biology as a hs text except for a student who lives and breathes biology.

 

Edited February 9, 2016 by reefgazer

[Mom22ns]

I got a copy of each and looked at them side by side. Campbell was dense. There were fewer pictures, pullouts, etc to break up the text. The content was similar, but arranged quite differently. You are right, Campbell is more concise, less conversational and not as "pretty". For us, prettier and lighter reading (even if longer) was a huge win. But it sounds like your preference fits the style of Campbell much better. 

Edited February 9, 2016 by Momto2Ns

[Serenade]

We got (an earlier edition) of Campbell and Reece to a large extent because of this nicely laid out course of high school biology:

https://quarksandquirks.wordpress.com/biology-hs-level/

I know that this homeschooler put great care into developing the syllabus.

 

 

Thanks for linking this. 

[J-rap]

It sounds like you've already made your decision.  :)

 

We used ML because of all the colorful pictures, general audience target (rather than a higher-level/AP-oriented audience), and online activities.

[Reefgazer]

DP

Edited February 9, 2016 by reefgazer

[Reefgazer]

No, I'm genuinely not sure which one I'm going with.  I do like some aspects of ML, and those things are very important to me:  Human anatomy is isolated to the last few chapters and I don't plan to teach human anatomy so I can easily eliminate it, there are 2 entire sections of animal phyla and those phyla are arranged from an evolutionary POV from simplest to most complex (which makes teaching animal evolution easier), the pictures are stunning and engaging, and the evolution section in ML is presented in a clearer manner.  So I have to decide if I want detail down to the molecular level (RC strength), or a more logical presentation of the book overall (ML strength).  I'm probably overthinking the whole thing, and either book would be fine, LOL! 

It sounds like you've already made your decision.   :)

 

We used ML because of all the colorful pictures, general audience target (rather than a higher-level/AP-oriented audience), and online activities.

 

[Arcadia]

Campbell C&C we had for $1 was the text used by community college. My kids didn't like it because on one hand it was as wordy as the AP text while on the other hand didn't cover as much.

 

The Miller Levine one was very colorful for both dragonfly and macaw edition. We did not buy that since library has a reference copy. We did have fun with the ibook version.

 

My oldest who just loves reading like the doorstopper to compliment his homeschool class biology sections. The class he attended covers all three sciences a year over four years (5th-8th) However this same kid find Larson math text too colorful and AoPS text plain enough. This kid like fat books regardless of subjects. He is not keen on bio so far but does not mind it.

 

My younger boy treats ML like a picture book so he will be using the doorstopper when he hits high school biology. This kid is interested in marine bio particularly penguins so going in depth won't be an issue. He has already used the marine bio text by Castro & Huber. We are looking at the internships programs with the aquarium when he turns 13.

 

ETA:

Oldest would either do bio next year with the homeschool class that is also a charter school vendor so they follow the typical PS scope but more hands on. If not hubby can do the theory while I oversee the dissections. Hubby was on the pre-med track for high school.

Edited February 9, 2016 by Arcadia

[Mom22ns]

No, I'm genuinely not sure which one I'm going with.  I do like some aspects of ML, and those things are very important to me:  Human anatomy is isolated to the last few chapters and I don't plan to teach human anatomy so I can easily eliminate it, there are 2 entire sections of animal phyla and those phyla are arranged from an evolutionary POV from simplest to most complex (which makes teaching animal evolution easier), the pictures are stunning and engaging, and the evolution section in ML is presented in a clearer manner.  So I have to decide if I want detail down to the molecular level (RC strength), or a more logical presentation of the book overall (ML strength).  I'm probably overthinking the whole thing, and either book would be fine, LOL! 

 

Let your student look at both. That is how we decided. I was like you, I saw good in both. I liked different things about each and felt like either one would work. I showed them both to ds. He read through a section in each, flipped through both and preferred M/L (bright and shiny). I really wanted his buy in though. I used it for both my kids, but dd loves Biology and I knew she would be fine with either. I actually think my kids both do better with prettier, more broken-up pages though. They just find it less intimidating than page after page of text.

[Kim C]

Has anyone used M&L (Macaw) and then had their child take the SAT subject test for biology? If so, do you feel M&L adequately prepares the student for the SAT subject test (with adequate test prep using Barrons or another test prep book)?

 

Kim

 

[Luckymama]

Has anyone used M&L (Macaw) and then had their child take the SAT subject test for biology? If so, do you feel M&L adequately prepares the student for the SAT subject test (with adequate test prep using Barrons or another test prep book)?

 

Kim

I can let you know in a few weeks ;) Dd is taking a storm-delayed subject test a week from Saturday.

[Kim C]

I can let you know in a few weeks ;) Dd is taking a storm-delayed subject test a week from Saturday.

 

That would be great! Good luck to your dd!

[Mike in SA]

I'll have to check this out; I didn't know about this. Thanks!

They use the doorstop version, btw. Very heavy on biochemistry, but that's just what DS wanted. The videos are worth watching just as background content - the rest of the material makes a whole lot more sense with the biochem base.

[Reefgazer]

This is ultimately what I did.  DD is like an old crow - she's attracted to all sorts of shiny, pretty things and opted for ML.  So ML it is, even though I would not have opted for that book if I had done the choosing exclusively.  So I'll reserve CR supplemental reading for those areas/pages that I feel need a bit more detail to be understood.

Let your student look at both. That is how we decided. I was like you, I saw good in both. I liked different things about each and felt like either one would work. I showed them both to ds. He read through a section in each, flipped through both and preferred M/L (bright and shiny). I really wanted his buy in though. I used it for both my kids, but dd loves Biology and I knew she would be fine with either. I actually think my kids both do better with prettier, more broken-up pages though. They just find it less intimidating than page after page of text.

 

[happypamama]

I can let you know in a few weeks ;) Dd is taking a storm-delayed subject test a week from Saturday.

Subbing to this so I can find out as well.

 

I haven't looked at the Campbell Reece book, but I do like the looks of the Miller Levine (Dragonfly), and that's what I (not a science person at all) am planning to use with DD for ninth grade.  I'm anxious to hear whether it's good for a subject test as well.  Luckymama, do report back!

[happypamama]

I can let you know in a few weeks ;) Dd is taking a storm-delayed subject test a week from Saturday.

Luckymama, I'm bumping this to find out what you and your DD thought about the subject test and M-L Biology.  I kind of figured that if DD needed any subject tests, Biology after M-L might be a good option, so I was wondering if you indeed thought it had worked well, or if additional prep really ought to be needed.

[EKS]

We used Campbell Essential Biology, which is a non majors text.  It was excellent.

[EndOfOrdinary]

Love the "two different texts" comment.

 

DS is using C-R, and I can't see how someone could reasonably cover the entire volume in 9 months with mastery (he is going to take 15 months). That said, it's an excellent text, and seems to cover much more than the AP bio test requires.

 

MIT-OCW uses C-R (which is why we did, too), and has excellent video support for the first half. You're on your own for the second half, though.

If AP Chem goes well this next year, we are opting for this option in 8th. Some part of me is holding out hope that MIT, or another wonderful free internet resource, will magically come up with videos for the other half.

[Mike in SA]

If AP Chem goes well this next year, we are opting for this option in 8th. Some part of me is holding out hope that MIT, or another wonderful free internet resource, will magically come up with videos for the other half.

 

i wish it would, but something tells me not to hold out hope.  It just doesn't fit the MIT paradigm - once you get past the technical lead-in, MIT is ready to shuffle you off to far more depth.  The second half of C-R is very broad, and not very deep.

[Dmmetler]

DD used Essential Bio for an overview and is going through sections of CR (the majors level doorstop). She just got Life:The Science of Biology in a raffle at a conference, and will probably use it similarly (It looks wonderful-but it's a $175 book!!), especially for the newer stuff (she's been using an older edition of C-R). But she is a kid who eats, sleeps, and breathes biology.

[klmama]

Let your student look at both. That is how we decided. I was like you, I saw good in both. I liked different things about each and felt like either one would work. I showed them both to ds. He read through a section in each, flipped through both and preferred M/L (bright and shiny). I really wanted his buy in though. I used it for both my kids, but dd loves Biology and I knew she would be fine with either. I actually think my kids both do better with prettier, more broken-up pages though. They just find it less intimidating than page after page of text.

 

This is the process I used with my dc, although the book choices were different.  One preferred ML because of the layout and the ease of understanding the material.  The other preferred a more difficult read because there weren't as many distracting pictures.  Both were happy with their choices. 

[EndOfOrdinary]

i wish it would, but something tells me not to hold out hope. It just doesn't fit the MIT paradigm - once you get past the technical lead-in, MIT is ready to shuffle you off to far more depth. The second half of C-R is very broad, and not very deep.

I had a feeling. Ds loves video instruction. Even if he doesn't need it, there is instant buy in with videos.

[learners4life]

Sorry, didn't have time to read all of the above responses, so maybe this is repeat, but we used the Campbell's Concepts and Connections textbook along with the online Mastering Biology that goes with that text.  It was excellent preparation for AP Biology, and we did make it through the whole book in one year (my daughter LOVES science, though, especially biology).

[Kim C]

I can let you know in a few weeks ;) Dd is taking a storm-delayed subject test a week from Saturday.

 

Luckymama, I just came across this post again and realized I never checked back with you. :)  So, do you feel the M&L biology book adequately prepared your dd for the biology SAT subject test?

 

Thanks

Kim

[FaithManor]

I reviewed both way back when, and ended up using the Campbell version that was on the AP approved list. I really liked the Campbell layout much better.

 

But this would have been 2010 ish time frame. I have not seen the newer one, however I have seen the ML due to a local friend who is using it, and she wishes she had picked something else. Her complaint is writing style.