mreditor16
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2014
- Messages
- 3,149
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2014
yes this. but it hasn't been published yet. its being circulated through other means in the education community....
-
Looking for HSC notes and resources? Check out our Notes & Resources page
Comparison of Maths Ext 2 books (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter bos1234
- Start date
faisalabdul16
Wot
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2014
- Messages
- 2,256
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2014
Hahah I wonder what schools are using this currently
dan964
what
In terms of topics, I personally recommend:
Coroneous for Complex Numbers - this one has by far the most challenging questions for complex numbers.
Patel for Integration (I really like this book in general in the way it splits the topics up), I borrowed it from the library and loved how it summarised the course, but this topic I reckon is its strength. As many have noticed, this one is also the best for "notes" in my opinion.
Fitzpatrick is terrible for Complex Numbers; and is mixed for Conics (not much moderate stuff). Some of the conics stuff in Fitzpatrick is good if you need a challenge, although the newest version waters down it a bit, and the "multiple choice" questions as well as the ones before it in the new version are just bad.
The best section is that for some parts of mechanics: conical pendulum and banked tracks part of mechanics. I personally would recommend the older version of Fitzpatrick if you want a harder book. (edit: maybe not)
Cambridge and Terry Lee are two good all-rounders for most topics, especially the latter. Cambridge is good for questions but not for learning the concepts, use anything else.
The old Arnold-Arnold book apparently has some good reduction questions for integration, as afore mentioned.
My school also used Couchman and various other old textbooks as well at times.
Also the MANSW solutions for the older HSC exams are your best bet for pre-2000 exams, and Terry Lee's are also good for the years that it is available for.
Coroneous for Complex Numbers - this one has by far the most challenging questions for complex numbers.
Patel for Integration (I really like this book in general in the way it splits the topics up), I borrowed it from the library and loved how it summarised the course, but this topic I reckon is its strength. As many have noticed, this one is also the best for "notes" in my opinion.
Fitzpatrick is terrible for Complex Numbers; and is mixed for Conics (not much moderate stuff). Some of the conics stuff in Fitzpatrick is good if you need a challenge, although the newest version waters down it a bit, and the "multiple choice" questions as well as the ones before it in the new version are just bad.
The best section is that for some parts of mechanics: conical pendulum and banked tracks part of mechanics. I personally would recommend the older version of Fitzpatrick if you want a harder book. (edit: maybe not)
Cambridge and Terry Lee are two good all-rounders for most topics, especially the latter. Cambridge is good for questions but not for learning the concepts, use anything else.
The old Arnold-Arnold book apparently has some good reduction questions for integration, as afore mentioned.
My school also used Couchman and various other old textbooks as well at times.
Also the MANSW solutions for the older HSC exams are your best bet for pre-2000 exams, and Terry Lee's are also good for the years that it is available for.
Last edited:
Drsoccerball
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 28, 2014
- Messages
- 3,647
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- 2015
Really ? I found the older version of Fitzpatrick bad compared to the newer one?
dan964
what
The new one has multiple choice questions which are pointless; and the summaries are sometimes lacking (although at least the new version has them). I think that Patel is the best book of the lot for revision excluding the exercises. (He also wrote the Excel book which is reasonable)
leehuan
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 31, 2014
- Messages
- 5,768
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2015
Patel's textbook was my main textbook. I extracted a ton out of it.
But it's pathetic for graphs and it's inequalities are biased on the algebraic ones.
-------------
Apart from M/C new Fitzpatrick has been argued by several people to be superior to old
-------------
Edit: I'm joking. It's not pathetic for graphs. But it goes into a bit too much with it. Most of the time the HSC gives you an arbitrary graph to make alterations; not make you do function of a function etc with KNOWN functions e.g. e^(sinx) as opposed to e^f(x) where y=f(x) gives you this random graph
But it's pathetic for graphs and it's inequalities are biased on the algebraic ones.
-------------
Apart from M/C new Fitzpatrick has been argued by several people to be superior to old
-------------
Edit: I'm joking. It's not pathetic for graphs. But it goes into a bit too much with it. Most of the time the HSC gives you an arbitrary graph to make alterations; not make you do function of a function etc with KNOWN functions e.g. e^(sinx) as opposed to e^f(x) where y=f(x) gives you this random graph
Last edited:
dan964
what
Would agree mostly; my school breezed mostly over the graphs section however. The new fitzpatrick is better in most areas, than the old.