<p>Hey, I’m self-studying Physics C too! (Except that I’m a rising junior.)</p>
<p>1) Use whichever one you like more; I hear good things about both of them. MIT uses the Young/Freedman book (the first one you listed), so that might help you follow along with the lectures. I’m using the book by Halliday, Resnick, and Krane (not Walker), since it’s supposed to be the best one for physics olympiad preparation, but I also have copies of both the ones you listed.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, I don’t have either copy of the book and I’m also confused if people mean the textbook by Krane or Walker when people mention Halliday & Resnick as this godly book. Also, the MIT lectures posted doesn’t use University Physics ><… But I can only buy one and I need something that’ll get me a 5 and 800 and explains things clearly and perhaps isn’t too dry.</p>
<p>Not exactly. SAT Physics covers more than AP Physics C, but with less depth (i.e. you don’t need calculus; in fact, you don’t need much math at all). In addition to the topics in AP Physics C, the SAT also covers fluid mechanics, thermodynamics, waves and sound, optics, atomic and nuclear physics, and special relativity.</p>
<p>If you haven’t taken a physics course or AP Physics B before, I don’t recommend taking the SAT II in physics, seeing as you will be a senior and thus will certainly not be able to cover all relevant material in time for submitting it in college apps.</p>
<p>Well like I said before, if I had access to both books, I would definitely pick which one suits me best. However, I don’t have access to either and there are no local libraries that carry them since I live in South Korea at the moment.</p>
<p>But I’m leaning towards University Physics by Young and Freedman since there is a cheap international version :D</p>
<p>@energize: Thanks for the help. I’m applying to MIT and they require a year of physics or at least evidence that you’ll survive their first year physics course… So I’m planning on studying physics over the summer and taking the SAT IIs as evidence that I can do some physics. Would Princeton Review be enough to get a perfect score on the SAT II Physics?</p>
<p>^Yes, the PR SAT Physics book would be enough for an 800. And MIT recommends having a year of physics; it doesn’t require it. Getting a good score on the SAT subject test without having taken physics wouldn’t hurt, though. (It will be rather difficult to cover all the material sufficiently by October or November, though…)</p>
<p>No, MIT doesn’t require it. However, seeing that I’m an international applicant, it’s pretty much required if I want to be considered >.<… Especially since I’m South Korean.</p>
<p>I took both AP Physics C Exams this year and I got a 5 in both. I used serway/Jewett Physics for scientist and engineers as a textbook and Barrons 2008 Edition as a review book and I think they are pretty good. I also have the questions bank for the fundamentals of Physics textbook if you want it.</p>
<p>@082349: Strange thing about that is that to qualify for international olympiads, one must qualify at the national level. Unfortunately, my Korean is… horrible, for reasons that I won’t say here since I don’t want to publish my autobiography. So instead, I do have an internship at a lab (thank god science is conducted in English :D) and self-studied as much as possible to make up for the lack of regional awards (I do have school awards though: science fair, student of the year, etc.). I never heard of the ISEF till the end of my junior year.</p>
<p>@TariqM: I actually downloaded University Physics with the question bank and solution manual so it’s alright. But thanks Do you recommend Barrons or Princeton Review for Physics C?</p>
<p>It’s either PR and McGraw-Hill, but both are wishy-washy. Barron’s I have not tried yet, but I need not anticipate the content. Barron’s prep guide will be too confusing and the paragraphs, too wordy, laden with needless information.</p>
<p>Please clarify what you mean by “wishy-washy”.</p>
<p>In my experience, I agree the McGraw-Hill book (5 Steps to a 5) is not sufficient for AP Physics C, though it was a decent book for B. I would recommend PR based on my experience with the B book, due to the great deal of accurate, albeit a little too computationally-focused practice problems and because of the clear explanations, which went into just a little more depth than needed (unlike Barron’s, which will probably have ridiculous amounts of information).</p>
(It will be rather difficult to cover all the material sufficiently by October or November, though…)</p>