Customer Reviews

Calculus

5 star:		(20)
4 star:		(10)
3 star:		(10)
2 star:		(9)
1 star:		(35)

 

 

I was one of the pre-publication reviewers for the second edition of this book. I have not been shy about telling a publisher that their book stinks if that's my opinion. But the Stewart book was then, and remains now, IMHO, the best introductory calculus text available. Please note that the majority of negative reviews came from people who have seen exactly one calculus book, and they clearly don't like calculus! But I have taught from three of the most popular books, and I've read most of the others. There may be other books which take a radically entertaining, non-traditional, and more superficial approach to the subject, and those books may meet with approval from people who really don't want to learn calculus. But of those (many) books which cover the traditional topics in an introductory calculus course, no other author has written a text as learnable as Stewart's. On every topic, Stewart is clearly conscious of the fact that his reader doesn't already know the subject, and he has given some thought to exactly what has to be explained in order for the student to learn successfully. Remember, most textbooks are not written for students: they are written for the professors who are going to choose the books. Professors are not generally impressed with a book which spends a half page clearly describing the meaning of a theorem which can be written with a one-line equation. But students will appreciate the effort Stewart has exerted to help them learn. Stewart does not sugar-coat or resort to gimmicks or superficiality in order to make the material learnable. All the material is there, it's just presented with an awareness that the reader is trying to learn calculus for the first time. If you are taking a calculus course with any other book, try to get a cheap used copy of the Stewart to use as a supplement. It will help!

I am a beginning calculus student at the local JC and have found this book to be a bit frustrating. While Stewart is very fluent, his explanations can be sterile and long-winded. At the same time Stewart's definitions, typically lacking a symbol explanation, are too abbreviated for my particular learning style. As I have progressed through the course I can see why Stewart chose to leave these symbols out, many are used repeatedly and to a professional it would seem redundant to include an explanation. However, as a student I find that this repetition is an important part of the learning process. A foreign language text makes a good analogue. Like a foreign language, math has a vocabulary and one can not simply be given a few words in the first chapter and then be expected to regurgitate them at will. While the overall organization of the book is very good, it is lacking in the specifics. Any one who uses this book will inevitably spend a lot of time performing unnecessary page turning, as the author often neglects to include the page numbers along with references to specific parts of the text. Stewart doesn't even provide the reader with an adequate convention by which the definitions could be found, numbering his definitions simply 1, 2, 3...etc. for each section. If I already knew calculus and were using this book as a reference I would probably give it a higher rating and perhaps even recommend it to you. As a student however, I feel it really doesn't work for me and I couldn't recommend it to anyone else.

This is the early transcendentals version of Stewart's calculus. The title of the book is quite appropriate, in that to learn calculus well, one must transcend the Stewart approach early and often. I found my self reading another text (Simmon's Calculus and Analytic Geometry) as an antidote to this dry, disjointed, lifeless tome.

Stewart takes an inconsistent (sometimes rigorous, sometimes intuitive) approach toward teaching the calculus. It seems as if he has attempted to be all things to all people. Though he may have attempted to present the subject in both an intuitive (to motivate the typical student) and rigorous (to satisfy the professor) manner, he failed to deliver on either.

The text is replete with pretty diagrams and some historical diversions, which read as canned, trivial snippets. In spite of this eye candy, the mathematical exposition is poor. Most proofs read as shorthand notes to one who already understands the subject. Is it analysis or basic calculus? Stewart seems to have a schizophrenic writing manner. On the one hand, he presents examples in "workbook" (i.e. Schaum's outline) form, so that if one wishes to solve a particular sort of problem, one might find it here. He does not seem able, however, to meld problem solving with rigor in a coherent manner. So an abbreviated proof is done, with several relevant steps (relevant, that is, to the beginner) omitted. What function does this serve for a pre-analysis student? A proof that might take 10 steps is presented in 4. What is the point of this approach? Perhaps so as to ward off accusations that a particular subject was not touched upon.

The book is expensive and bloated. Though the "official" rendering of the page numbers is 781, there are approximately 130 other pages devoted to appendices (some as advertisements for other, i.e. ancillary, materials). Note, this text is intended for a 2 semester Calculus sequence. It seems inappropriate, perhaps fraudulent,that Stewart devoted 900+ pages for this task, and yet failed to present the material in an interesting and efficient manner.

Given his insistence upon this secondary material, I ask Stewart - did you ever intend for this book to be relatively self-contained for the serious first year scholar, or did you expect the professor or CD-ROM to fill in the gaps in your exposition? In spite of the suggestion to buy expensive ancillaries, I diverted myself to the library where I discovered Simmons' brilliant exposition. This text provides what Stewart does not - a good, efficient foundation of the basic calculus in the context of intellectual breadth. When a calculus first-timer reads Simmons, he or she will likely understand exactly why a calculation is being done, as opposed to the Stewart "willy-nilly" approach, as if one is simply calculating for calculations sake, much like working glorified accountancy problems. Calculus is an intellectual masterpiece, but Stewart presents it as disjointed, purposeless exercise solving. I suggest that serious freshman mathematics scholars avoid Stewart. Compare the Stewart text to others in your school library if possible, buy used if necessary, and read something else if the exposition seems problematic.

I recommend most highly the George F. Simmon's text Calculus and Analytic Geometry (either the first or second edition). Another promising text is Anton's Calculus: A New Horizon, as more efficient, focused alternatives. These texts allow one to learn first year calculus on one's own, and if one has the benefit of a decent professor, so much the better for one's edification. After Simmons or Anton, one should be well prepared to move on to introductory analysis, such as the work of Michael Spivak (Spivak's Calculus).

This is the first time I have taught freshman calculus in several years. Our department selected Stewart's book about 7 years ago, but I was unaffected by the choice. Now that I am teaching out of the book, I am disappointed and sometimes even angry. The author does not have the crisp logical presentation that I expect of college-level text. The writing has no personality. It is almost like I am looking at the Reader's Digest of calculus books, with one page taken from Book A, another from Book B, and another from Book C. My students do not like the book, and this has created a poor attitude in class. The next time our department meets to discuss calculus texts, I plan to participate in the decision.

Our department has been using this book since September, 2001. Like most math teachers, I don't use the book much. So, I would have said that the book is fine. My students, however, have developed quite a passionate hatred of the book. They say it is difficult to read, the tone is patronizing, the exercises are not well matched to the examples, and the odd-numbered answers in the back of the book have several errors. Also, a couple of the more theoretical members of our department say that the book is off in some of it theory. Our department has decided to hunt for a new book for the fall of 2002.

This is the absolutely worst mathematics textbook that I've ever come across (and I've seen plenty). I'm not going to be shy about telling everyone I know that this book stinks. Please note that most positive reviews came from musty, old mathematicians who weren't trying to learn from this book. I enjoy math and calculus, but I get nothing from this book. Had I not learned calculus first from other textbooks and professors, I would not have been able to even partly understand anything Stewart was trying to get across. In his explanations, he often goes from point A to point B without telling his method for doing so. There were a number of times where I would stare at the pages, wondering how he came up with his answers (at the time I just figured it was magic). Another annoying habit Stewart has, is giving the easiest example problems that he can. This can really screw you over when he gives an oversimplified example for a theorem, and then in the problem set, creates a god-awful mess. There were alot of problems that I couldn't even start because Stewart didn't give adequate explanations or examples.
The bottom line: If you're a student, don't try to learn from this book,and if you're a teacher, please don't teach from this book. Be thankful that there are other textbooks available.

I was forced to teach from this book for one semester. I hope I never have to do it again. The worst part of it was that my students found the book so confusing that they were constantly in my office asking questions. I have used several other calculus books and this one generated the most student complaints.

I have been teaching calculus at a university for over 20 years. I was on the adoption committee to select calculus texts. I had heard that the Stewart text was a national best seller, so I volunteered to review it. I was startled. I can see now reason why this text is widely used. It is even more difficult to believe that its author has had any classroom experience with honest-to-goodness calculus students. The writing is rambling and obtuse. The design is not helpful and blends prose with examples. The art is irregular, some art is small and some is huge, some topics that cry for graphs have none and some that don't need graphs have several. I have used several other texts and it appears that the author used a cut and paste technique to create this text, taking liberally from other best sellers. After a careful review of this "popular" text, I felt obligated to write this review. Someone needs to point out that the "emperor is not wearing any clothes!"

We adopted this book because several of our neighboring colleges use the text. After using the book I am stunned that any college continues to use it. Our department never had so many complaints from students. We almost always suffer through a text for the full 4-year adoption period. This text was so bad that we dropped it after one year.

I am in my second semester of calculus, using Calculus by James Stewart. I have never disliked a book as much as this one! It is hard to say what the trouble is. At first glance, it seems like a typical boring math book. But, when you start to read it, the attitude of the author begins to make you feel stupid. The author doesn't talk to students. He says things like "we can see that" or "it is clear that" ... but most of the time I can't see it and it isn't clear. He skips steps in the examples. I have wasted hours trying to make my answer to an exercise fit the one in the back of the book, only to discover in class the next day that the book had an error. My professor says that this is a widely used calculus book. I think it is terrible that a calculus author has become a multi-millionaire by writing a math book that makes students feel dumb. If you are a teacher and are considering this book, please show it to your students first. If they are like me, they will tell you to find a book that is better written.