On Textbooks (Part III)

Posted Wed Nov 30, 2005 in

In my previous posts (Part I and Part II), I ruminated on the Surowiecki article and on the Wikibook project. Let me complete the series with more thoughts on my own textbook projects.

I will be looking for an alternative approach for my textbook projects. I’m not worried about it. I have time to investigate. So, let me diverge slightly.

What makes a good textbook, in my opinion, is not encyclopedic coverage of a topic. On the contrary, what makes a good textbook is focused coverage of a topic. Most of the textbooks in my field attempt to be too many things when what I need is a focused treatment of a few fundamental concepts. I want to cover the fundamental concepts in my classes, leaving the other material either for more specialized classes or for the student (engineer) to learn through outside study and application of the fundamentals.

In my Ph.D. program, I earned a minor in mathematics. No, I’m not a mathematician. I have some knowledge of mathematics, however, hard learnt under good teachers. One of the bits of appreciation I carried away from the mathematics department at my alma mater is for the small textbook. With a small text, you can be certain that the author distilled the essence of the topic into the most compact bundle possible. At least, I came away from my math classes thinking this. Of course, I had the benefit of expert “choosers of textbooks” to guide me.

I think we need this focused approach in engineering. A cessation of the do-all text and a turn (or return) to focused books on fundamental topics. With the most recent edition of our undergraduate text in hydrology (eighth edition), Viessman and Lewis (Introduction to Hydrology) got smaller. In my opinion, this is a good thing, although I think more could be done. I like what I see in the text—the writing seems to be tighter and more focused too.

So, with that said, I don’t think my book projects will ever be of interest to a traditional textbook house. My approach is too different and not in line with what is currently being done. So I’ll be looking for an alternative approach to completing and marketing my work.

With regard to Surowiecki, well, he missed the mark, in my opinion. Why is he after the cost of textbooks when textbook quality would be so much more interesting? There ain’t no squirrel up that tree…