Hey /sci/, Name a single good textbook published by Pearson,

>>7779877

Algebra by Artin
Linear Algebra by Friedberg, Insel, and Spence
Applied Partial Differential Equations by Haberman

>>7779877
Pretty sure they have published Spacetime and Geometry by Carroll.

Really any Giancoli physics text is pretty good, despite the shekel grubbing at Pearson

File: 20160112_210742.jpg (3MB, 3984x2988px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3984x2988px

>>7779877
mechanical engineer here

>>7779877
Fundamental Elemental Concepts of Fuck with Mastering Bullshit for a low,low price of $299, new editions released bi-annually and a secret deal with your university forcing professors to use the most recent edition of the book.

File: 1440750863867.jpg (179KB, 582x879px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 582x879px

>>7779877
What the fuck am I looking at here? Why on earth is there a picture of King George and a musket in the background?

Mastering physics is bullshit, fuck this company. I hope they go under and their board of directors offs themselves in front of their families

File: 412xFJZ-JFL._SX348_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (26KB, 350x499px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 350x499px

>>7779877
Pearson publishes Munkres, which is the only one they publish I know of that I actually like enough to recommend to people.

Artin's algebra is a decent book too though. Just overpriced when there are better alternatives.

>>7779947
>Mastering physics

Blame your school for using that shit. University Physics with Modern Physics by Young and Freedman is a good textbook

>>7779942
What manga? Looks awesome

>>7779877
I have to agree with you OP

Oxford University Press master race reporting in.

>>7779931

Yeah, that astrophysics book is great

What are the best publishers out there?

- Dover Publications
- Oxford University Press
- Cambridge University Press
- Publish or Perish, Inc.

>>7780017
Publish or Perish hardly even counts, I don't even think they've put out a dozen books and half their library is by Spivak

Agreed on Cambridge though, most Cambridge books are really top-notch.

AMS Chelsea puts out a lot of really high-quality math texts, although they have a bad habit of keeping outdated classics in print

>>7780025
>bad habit of keeping outdated classics in print
That's a good habit, mate.
Sometimes it's so hard to find a good old reference book, because the market is flooded with modern ones that aren't as good.

File: 1452373846778.jpg (29KB, 640x519px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 640x519px

>>7779877
I've only recently been catching onto this myself.

Their operating systems book goes into the material way to slowly and still skimps on important details.

Their Feedback control of dynamical systems book gives no context to anything that they try to poorly explain.

File: 51HmFmjDDIL._SX404_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (53KB, 406x500px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 406x500px

>>7779877
The worst publisher is Morgan Kaufmann (MK)

>All their shit is paperback
>All their paperbacks are incomplete and rip out half the sections onto CDs

All my fucking hate

>>7779966
Six dangerous misdeeds.

>>7779894
Only the first one you named is good. The other two suck ass, especially Friedberg, Insel, and Spence.

>>7779942
underrated post

File: kolmogorov.jpg (37KB, 341x499px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 341x499px

>>7779877
Linear Algebra - Hoffmann, Kunze

But that was 40 years ago and the fuckers still haven't published a re-print.

Dover is GOAT though.

>>7780017
I love Cambridge books, never been disappointed

>>7779937
holy shit i thought i was imagining that, i even told a friend and she thought i was crazy

we're using concept of genetics 10th because the 11th edition is sold out and had been since before starting the course yet they wouldnt change textbooks (i dont really know how texbook choice takes place though). and when they finally got a new batch of the 11th edition our prof brought the book and was actually asking "SO HOW MANY OF YOU ARE YOU GOING TO BUY THIS EH????"

funny shit is that in 90% of lectures the powerpoints they use are always using other books, fucking hell

More importantly what textbook has the most aesthetic front cover?

>>7779952
Have you seen the hack job they made of the most recent edition? It's fucking terrible.

File: university physics.png (1MB, 768x985px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 768x985px

>>7779877
I'm pretty ignorant on the subject, even though every single experience I've had with Pearson has been miserable, but what about pic related?

I've heard this was a great comprehensive textbook for introductory physics, and I'm curious to know if that's true or not since I just started working out of it.

>>7780017
Springer
MIT

>>7780407
i just started it too
im only at dot products though, kind of a pain in the ass already but everything is crystal clear and it seems to be a great textbook

File: 1088187.jpg (51KB, 302x399px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 302x399px

I remember having to use Pearson textbooks in high-school.

The physics one we used were filled with so much irrelevant "FUN FACT" tidbits and filler material that wasn't related to curriculum at all.

A lot of the students would rent the textbooks out because they were "required" but learn the entirety of the courses from outside material, just because the textbook had such a poor signal-to-noise ratio.

Pic related.

Are Pearson better or worse than Elsevier?

>>7780519
Worse if you mean quality. Elsevier, Springer et al. are fucking jews tho.

I had rant in the other thread about lower paper quality and cutting important chapters (and the preface+appendices which is actually extremely important to serious students) just because the fuckwits want to save a bit on paper and ink. They're fucking stupid they will usually put the missing chapters on CDs etc. so they're barely cutting costs anyway.

Seriously boycott Pearson. Tell your faculty not to buy their shit until they stop fucking up.

They're money whores who aren't even good at money whoring, they cut on everything important and still can't keep their prices low.

>been working for Pearson for almost five years now and still baffled by their jewry on a daily basis
I-I'm sorry.

>>7780846
I'm actually considering drafting a petition from faculty in all major departments in our country to send to several authors of key titles that we'd like to keep using, but will only do so if they sign with a different publisher. I know it doesn't effect authors that much whether their books sell, but they do care about their academic reputation and if several departments ask them to switch publishers they'd do it in a heart beat.

Seriously they fuck over our undergrads with shit quality printing for books that are supposed to last as a life time reference while still retaining very high prices. I'm not using any Pearson publication in my syllabus anymore and convinced most of our faculty to do the same.

>>7780129
Couldn't find it anywhere. Can you post a link?

File: 18128418241824812.png (558KB, 709x635px) Image search: [Google]

558KB, 709x635px

>course has mandatory assignments through those stupid fucking MyLabs
>can't get around feeding these jews money by torrenting or buying an old copy from two editions ago

>>7780407

Good but you should have bought the 12th edition

>>7779952
is that a nazi book?

>>7779942
I assume the artist of that meme associated those two things because Pearson is a British company and are absolute shit. If it isn't obvious yet Pearson is evil and plotting to bring the USA down through poorly written textbooks.

does anyone know where I can get an expired masteringphysics access code.

Reasons-
other people have been having trouble with their codes in my class and now Pearson is just handing out new codes for anyone with trouble in our class, but you need an expired or already used code to make it work. I am using the 14 temp access right now and would love to save the $70-$120 (Amazon or Bookstore) of buying the code.

Why-
Teacher threatened to stop using their books so now they are being nice.

Why do their books have to be so thick?

In fact every american publisher have too thick books with unnecessary info

>>7781746
Yes. If you support Pearson you are literally supporting Nazis.

And not the good German kind either, the retarded hick American kind.

>>7781745
>>7780407

This is such a terrible physics book it's crazy.

>>7779877
>Name a single good textbook published by Pearson

Chemistry: The Central Science by Brown, LeMay, and Bursten
Organic Chemistry by Bruice

>>7782672
> american nazis
learn history retard

>>7782667

paid per word?

>>7779937
>a secret deal with your university
>your

No, it's actually med schools that require the newest edition of intro science books or they will blacklist your university. It makes sense with bio* books since each edition tells of how the old edition was full of shit but it's retarded for math/chem/physics books

>>7780866
>if they sign with a different publisher

They can't. Most professors get swindled by publishers and lose their rights to their book when they first publish.

>>7779877
University Physics is fine and is used as a reference book along with Halliday/Resnick/Walker by quite a few people.

>>7780407
Y&F is a perfectly fine textbook.

>>7783653
I'd like to hear what you could possible have against it, but you're just going to greentext words without any meaning to them.

>>7779877
I can't understand people who're buying books. You're only supporting the Jew, isn't it obvious?

File: 9780321643636.jpg (65KB, 506x648px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 506x648px

This book is wonderful

>>7784186
that title is a joke

>>7783714
Not all publishers are full jew.
And it's good to own a physical copy, the virtual world isn't as trustworthy.

>>7785734
please explain how my textbook ebook is not "trustworthy"

bump for ebin justice

>>7780397
What exactly is wrong with it?

>>7780129
seven deadly sins

griffiths intro to QM is published by pearson and it's good.

>>7779894
>Linear Algebra by Insel
lol

>>7785980
>>7779931

>>7785744

You know: North Korea, cyber warfare, 9/11, terrorism, Islamic extremism, national security, communism, homophobia, racism, bigotry, school shootings, mental health issue, rising Chinese influence, gun violence, the state of the economy, drug culture, war against misogyny...

You can never be too safe.

>>7786117
what the fuck are you talking about

File: images[1].jpg (14KB, 524x648px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 524x648px

>>7779877
Pic related.

But I agree, Pearson is a shitty publisher. Griffiths even shit-talks Pearson on his personal website

>>7785980
0/10

Griffiths is a shit tier book.

>>7779877
griffiths em and qm

File: 1447197597359.jpg (131KB, 485x458px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 485x458px

>>7786266
Name a better first introduction text

>>7786289
^This, and read title of the book 'intoduction'.
If you as a first/second year undergrad study this thing front to cover, you get a very good picture of QM.

>>7786265
uhu Pearson really raped intro to qm in the last 2014 print

>>7786289
Sakurai?

>>7786320
It's not better than Griffiths (not worse either)
Personally hate it when they begin with Stern Gerlach though

>>7786252
>fear mongers in charged of making sense

>>7786320
That's aimed more at graduate students who have already seen QM. Also it's not a very good book anyway

>>7786320
Sakurai is significantly more intense of a book than Griffiths. You'd have to be seriously prepared or a genius to use it as a first look.

Also Shankar > Sakurai anyway

>>7786656

My undergrad QM class supplemented Griffiths with Sakurai.

>>7786656
Sakurai is a first introduction for undergrads. What the fuck are you talking about?

>>7779877
Even their exam board is a fucking joke
A joke I was a part of

>>7787715
It literally isn't. The book itself says so

>>7788021
Just to back this up:

"...provides a graduate-level, non-historical, modern introduction of quantum mechanical concepts... better prepares the student for the next course in quantum field theory... You will still find such classic developments as neutron interferometer experiments, Feynman path integrals, correlation measurements, and Bell’s inequality..."

Absolutely not a "first introduction for undergrads"

>>7783697
I meant for their newer editions. If they lost the naking rights they can just use a new name.

>>7785980
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaah.......

>>7786265
Inferior to Jackson in every capacity.

>>7788027

You underestimate publishers, they have the rights to all new editions as well. You have to completely rewrite your book to escape the trap.

>>7786265
>2016
>not using Jackson for E&M

>>7788033
Jackson is not an introductory text for undergraduates. You faggots keep getting confused on this shit

>>7788040
>>7788033
Samefag

>>7785744
Hardware/software failure is more likely than your book getting on fire.