Most Helpful Customer Reviews
50 of 53 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
An example of what can go wrong with textbooks, June 17, 2003
REA's problem solvers series starts out with a treatise on why they have written their books. Many of the problems they express with textbooks are evidenced in Electric Circuits by Nilsson, et al. The following problems, that REA states are evident in many textbooks, are evident with this one: "No systematic rules have been developed which students may follow up in a step-by-step manner. . ." the subject matter is written "by a professional who has insight. . .not shared by the students" and "the examples following a topic are too few in number and too simple to enable the student to get a thorough grasp of the principles involved." While Electric Circuits does a presentable job at being clear, it tends to gloss over important nuances that are not described in the examples. With no answers to exercises available with the book (you can find them on the book's official website with some searching-but even those solutions have multiple errors) and no study guide showing step-by-step solutions to some of the problems, the student is left with trying to figure out the exercises without adequate examples or explanations. This reduces the textbook from being a resource to being a reference that sits in the student's book bag all semester only to be opened to find the assigned problems. For an individual to read to get an extremely basic explanation of circuit analysis, or for an expert looking to refresh his or her memory, Electric Circuits may be adequate. For a student trying to learn the minutiae of circuit analysis, this book is woefully lacking.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
68 of 78 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
A Stinker!, January 19, 2003
A stinker The major frustration students mention when derogating this text is the fact that solutions are not provided. While this is a legitimate complaint against the book there are much larger systemic problems with the text. Even though I had access to all the solutions I found this book to be fairly pathetic. First the book conceptually sloppy. Aesthetically its nicely laid out and I suspect the average rushed professor pursuing through it when searching for an appropriate text for their class will look at its superficial qualities (pretty pictures, major topics are appropriate ordered and highlighted) and think the book is suitable for their class. I assure you it's not suitable for most students. Secondly the book, which somehow and tragically got a foothold in universities, has enough critical mass and momentum to perpetuate its obsolete and sad existence despite many better contenders. This is a major problem in academia which is so sessile and scared of change that it takes a miracle to usurp an established text, no matter how poor that text actually is. I suppose this is because they are freightened that they will be looked down upon if they dont follow the same established pracitces as other universities they wish to measure up to. Probably the same reason they will hire bad professors from Harvard or Yale over better teachers from less famous schools. A self-perpatuating, group think cowardice that fails to serve their students. Now the book is sloppy in the sense that concepts aren't developed or explained well, or at all, explanations are cloudy or lead back onto themselves. Worst of all The drill exercises and problems don't correlate well with the text. Most exercises seem to expect you to go one to two levels of creative and intuitive abstractions beyond what's stated in the text. This is not acceptable in a putatively introductory text. Despite the authors stated belief in the foreword, this is no way to teach beginning students who want to learn the basics and learn them clearly. This is totally inexcusable, naïve, and fundamentally wrongheaded. As an example exercise 1.10 cannot be answered with the scant and unhelpful information provided. Exercise 2.11 is truly a circuit divider problem but circuit dividers aren't introduced into later in the book. It seems the author expects you to figure out a circuit divider on your own -ya right. This is just a preliminary taste of the sloppiness and wrong-headedness present in this tome. I have reviewed several of my textbooks all positively except for this mess. This work is embarrassing for the authors and I would think with so many poor reviews they would work to correct some of these issues. But alas the last three editions of this book are next to identical with no changes between the editions except for rearranging the problems order in the back of the chapters and an obvious intent to generate new monies from poor students by reissuing the same tired material - classy move there. Now I'm concerned the authors will blow off these poor ratings and just attribute them to bitter, underachieving students, but how can so many complaints be ignored? The author previous editions are almost identical to his latest mess so why doesn't he correct at least some of the issues repeatedly stated by students. One can only guess he doesn't care, is too lazy, or is in a state of denial. Jim and Susan need to reconsider their errant ways. So many students cant all be wrong, you produced a stinker here that's sloppy and ill conceived. Please put substance in front of pretty layout and address the needs of so many frustrated students. Please!
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
8 of 8 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Terrible, awful, atrocious., February 2, 2003
By A Customer
This book replaced the book I used for the first portion of advanced circuit analysis, called Linear Circuit Analysis. That book wasn't great, but I could glean some useful information from it. THIS BOOK .... The authors don't have any examples in the chapters. They don't explain things clearly. The drill excercises aren't even worked. Perhaps an analogy would be helpful. Write a math book for 3rd graders. Intorduce the concept of division: " an integer which is not prime is divisible by two other integers" and then give them a massive and confusing problem set. Don't define the word integer. Don't work any problems. Bleagh! So far, I've managed to learn this from this text: Mr. Nilsson and Ms. Riedel are clearly way more intelligent than I am. What possible use could I have for an example? To be more specific, I grasp the concepts they present (not much thanks to them), but am unable to perform the mechanics of the operations, which in no case that I can find are shown. I guess I'll have to ask the paperboy for help.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|