The very best Biology textbook in terms of EASE to follow and understand?

[saoj]

The beauty of a textbook is not how many complex concepts it explains, but HOW it does it, in other words, how easy is the read for a non-specialist to follow and understand the concepts. Biology is not rocket science. Explaining in a nice and easy way is. Is there such a textbook for Biology?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[MedPR]

The beauty of a textbook is not how many complex concepts it explains, but HOW it does it, in other words, how easy is the read for a non-specialist to follow and understand the concepts. Biology is not rocket science. Explaining in a nice and easy way is. Is there such a textbook for Biology?

EK Bio.

 

[saoj]

EK Bio.

Nope. I am betting on Biology by Campbell. It will take more time but I will get a better grade. At least that's the plan. 🙂

 

[Lunasly]

Nope. I am betting on Biology by Campbell. It will take more time but I will get a better grade. At least that's the plan. 🙂

1) Why ask if you have an answer?

2) You're an idiot.

 

[iceman132]

Nope. I am betting on Biology by Campbell. It will take more time but I will get a better grade. At least that's the plan. 🙂

This looks to be about your reading level.

 

[Tam099]

Have you taken any biology courses? Have you tried a practice test yet?

I've read through Campbell twice, there are too many topics that are NOT tested at all. It is NOT more simple than EK. If you think EK is not an easy read then you might want to take a refresher class. I suggest a good physiology class.

 

[saoj]

Have you taken any biology courses? Have you tried a practice test yet?

I've read through Campbell twice, there are too many topics that are NOT tested at all. It is NOT more simple than EK. If you think EK is not an easy read then you might want to take a refresher class. I suggest a good physiology class.

Thanks for your answer. HK is straight to the point. Everyone is different, but just throwing concepts in a raw format does not promote learning. If you know the stuff already, then it is ok, that's why it is a review book. But if you don't know the stuff, then like you said you should take a refreshing course. But in the course they will use a textbook. IMHO, textbooks have a much higher chance of being better than your professor. I am going to use Campbell and read the parts related to the MCAT. I think it will be a more pleasurable read, but it will take more time... :-|

 

[iceman132]

Thanks for your answer. HK is straight to the point. Everyone is different, but just throwing concepts in a raw format does not promote learning. If you know the stuff already, then it is ok, that's why it is a review book. But if you don't know the stuff, then like you said you should take a refreshing course. But in the course they will use a textbook. IMHO, textbooks have a much higher chance of being better than your professor. I am going to use Campbell and read the parts related to the MCAT. I think it will be a more pleasurable read, but it will take more time... :-|

Do you have aspergers syndrome?

Why the hell would you ask for others opinions if you already made up your mind.

 

[mcloaf]

Biology is not rocket science

Strong words from the poster of a thread asking for an easy to understand biology textbook...


I had Freeman's Biological Science in my intro bio class, and found it quite adequate. Without a doubt the best bio related textbook I've ever used is Nelson and Cox's Principles of Biochemistry, but that might be a little too specialized for more general MCAT bio studying.

 

[MedPR]

I can't figure out who is trolling harder, the OP or everyone replying...

 

[milski]

Strong words from the poster of a thread asking for an easy to understand biology textbook...


I had Freeman's Biological Science in my intro bio class, and found it quite adequate. Without a doubt the best bio related textbook I've ever used is Nelson and Cox's Principles of Biochemistry, but that might be a little too specialized for more general MCAT bio studying.

I have to vote against Freeman. It was the 'required' book for my bio classes as well. It was tolerable during the first quarter but as we got into molecular and cell bio it got more and more annoying. The book is adequate and the information is there, but he spends way too much time talking about what experiments were done and how things evolved to be some way than describing what that way is. What he's doing is valuable but not exactly practical for an intro class.

Frustrated trying to filter out information, I found a copy of Campbell/Rice and never looked back. It even turned out that my professor's syllabus was much closer to that than to the 'required' book.

 

[dmf2682]

1) Why ask if you have an answer?

2) You're an idiot.

Lol this 👍

 

[mcloaf]

I have to vote against Freeman. It was the 'required' book for my bio classes as well. It was tolerable during the first quarter but as we got into molecular and cell bio it got more and more annoying. The book is adequate and the information is there, but he spends way too much time talking about what experiments were done and how things evolved to be some way than describing what that way is. What he's doing is valuable but not exactly practical for an intro class.

Frustrated trying to filter out information, I found a copy of Campbell/Rice and never looked back. It even turned out that my professor's syllabus was much closer to that than to the 'required' book.

Ah, interesting. That could very much be the case. The class for which I used it was a "if I write it on the board, it will be on the test" kind of class. The text book was really just if you wanted to use it for the most part. It saved me on memorizing cladistics that I didn't want to write down in class, but I guess that's about all I used it for now that I think about it.

I still stand by Nelson and Cox. That book ruled my life this past year, and I sort of liked it...