CGP GCSE Physics - Not that great?

2

Anyone here has a CGP GCSE Physics Revision Guide? Is it just me or do they tend to waffle a bit on a lot of the topics? I mean, sometimes they take pages and pages to cover what could be written down in just one short paragraph, IMO.

How do people rate CGP guides in general? I think they were great for Biology, alright for Chemistry, but a little waffly for Physics. That's why I'm using Collins' Total Revision Guide for my physics revision. The whole physics syllabus is covered in about 50 pages and it's got tips on how to get an A* answer, and what is most likely to appear.

With CGP I get the feeling they're trying to stuff as much info into your head as possible but when you try their practice papers (the seperate ones you can buy) i notice there are a lot of questions I can't answer - because the rev guides didn't have any info on them.

anyone notice these things as well, or is it just me?

p.s. hows everyone finding their GCSE physics revision? Easy or hard, compared to the other science subjects

Reply 1

glance

17

I use Letts for physics GCSE. It's sometimes a bit vague but it's good and clear. I find Physics one the hardest subject to revise

Reply 2

Ellie4

2

CGP books are fairly useless on the whole. They try to make funny jokes which aren't funny, and oversimplofy things. They should only really be used to consolidate after you've been revising from your notes.

Reply 3

roff

OP

2

I wouldn't go as far as saying they were completely useless, I think they're good if you know absolutely nothing about the subject, as they explain everything. But for the student that does have basic knowledge, they seem to tend to waffle on a lot of topics.
glance, do you really find physics one of the hardest to revise? I think it's one of the easier SCI subs, you just need to know the formula for a couple of things, and most of it is a bit of common sense.

Reply 4

-mb-

6

In my experience (A-level Maths) they are utter sh*t; don't waste your own or your parents' money on them:

A) The revision "guides" are impossible to read comfortably and therefore follow, as they us far to many different colours, fonts and styles (bold, italic, underline etc.) :mad:

B) They are overall inaccurate on syllabus content
- Their maths guide says certain stuff is required, when it isn't, and more dangerously, vice versa.
- Their maths "mocks" include the wrong types of question; I have encountered an M2 question in an M1 paper, a P3 question in a P2 paper etc.
This is all when revising OCR Specification A.

C) Their "mocks" are overall too short, and sometimes too easy (S1 for example), which is deceptive, as they don't ask the more demanding questions, and suggest stupidly large numbers of marks for one calculation.

D) They are ridculously vague, and patronising.
I know that the bad jokes are deliberate (actually that kind of thing amuses me sometimes :eek:

), but the absurd oversimplification is actually detrimental to learning (see Chris Woodhead's education bit in the Sunday Times today).

There is also nonsense like this, which is a quote from an answer book for my Maths A-level mocks: "Don't worry if this doesn't entirely make sense - it's a slightly strange method, but it works." :confused:

What kind of an attitude is that? How reassuring is it to read?

You might be right if you guessed I won't buy them again... :biggrin:

Reply 5

Jump

18

I have one a CGP one for AS Maths, not much use as it jumbles up the topics because its for all exam boards. But some of the jokes are legendary...
"Pascal was fine at maths but rubbish at music - he only played the triangle"
...makes me wanna cry :redface:

Reply 6

sloaney87

In the a/s level maths book there is a page on cows....

anyways

for physics im basing all my gcse revision on the cgp and im aiming for an astar, in my opinion they are good nothing came up in the bio/chem exams that werent covered in the cgp books

my school keeps telling us that cgp are no way enough but generally gcse science exams arent that detailed

i get around 90+% in practice papers with just using the cgp but then again it might backfire with this exam and cgp be worthless

Reply 7

ovalorbit

I think CGP are ok for revision and I think the practise papers are ok even though the examples are a little weird. However, there is no way enough detail on some of the hardest subjects and on others that could have about one line theres too much.

I'm really finding physics revision the hardest. i don't know whether thats because it actually hard or because the end's in sight ( WOOOHOOO!!!).

I find it best to make your own notes that way you know everythings there. But it's very boring and takes loads of time but is effective.

Reply 8

roff

OP

2

I've been VERY VERY lazy with my physics revision (probs because the end is near) and I've just been reading through the Collins Total Revision Guide.

I think it's really easy though :confused:

maybe it's because I haven't really revised like how I did for Bio and Chem. Anyways, I'll just brush up my knowledge on Outer Space and Radioactivity, Home Insulation, and ofcourse the formulas and I THINK I should be ok....i hope

Reply 9

Unregistered

-mb-

There is also nonsense like this, which is a quote from an answer book for my Maths A-level mocks: "Don't worry if this doesn't entirely make sense - it's a slightly strange method, but it works." :confused:

What kind of an attitude is that? How reassuring is it to read?

You might be right if you guessed I won't buy them again... :biggrin:

that was for inverting a function, right?
thats pretty much the same way we were taught at school. the method does make sense - it's made easier by changing the x and y's - but can be followed none theless. but you dont really need to understand it to follow it

rosie

Reply 10

generalebriety

16

CGP books are great! What's wrong with you people? :tongue:

On a recent GCSE-style internal exam I had (biology), there was a question on a dormouse. A DORMOUSE!? We've never done anything about them! Reading on though, I found out it was actually stuff we'd done... it could've been a dormouse or a pencil, but we all knew the stuff in it. It was about keeping warm during hibernation, by rolling up into a ball, etc... very easy.

CGP books are useless at teaching you about individual animals and stuff (and this is just for biology), but they don't need to. The point is to work it out yourself. I'm very pleased with CGP's books... the annoying font colours and styles are to highlight the important bits so you don't get bored with pages full of black text, and the jokes... no matter how crap... are hilarious in comparison with my biology textbook.

Reply 11

neha p

i think they are good for the last minute information cram, but if you are trying to revisie properly i tend to find the stuff given doesnt really relate to exam questions.

Reply 12

vinz

2

nah, CGP are utter poo. The questions at the end of each chapter are useless, since they have no answers and you have to look them up yourself. The best way to revise with them is to get a copy of the science syllabus, print it out, and combine that and the books. you'll find a lot of the crap in the CGP books is unneccessary ie. you don't actually need it for your exam, it's just relevant.

the practice papers are rubbish, i find a lot of the topics in the science ones aren't even mentioned in the revision books.

Reply 13

-mb-

6

crana

that was for inverting a function, right?
thats pretty much the same way we were taught at school. the method does make sense - it's made easier by changing the x and y's - but can be followed none theless. but you dont really need to understand it to follow it

rosie

It is absolutely unacceptable to suggest that it is "okay" to be doing A-Level maths and not be understanding how the methods you use actually work.

It is totally the wrong attitude to take, and CGP would be better off finding good ways of explaining this simple concept to those who do not understand it, rather than making pointless flippant remarks.

The idiotic sentence encourages no-one, makes no-one laugh, and is counter-productive.

No crap about "lightening up" - this is not an "alternative" approach, it's just inexcusable bull.

Reply 14

LS.

8

I had seperate CGP gcse guides for each of the sciences (even though I was doing double) and I think they were good for revision - I didn't do hardly any of the activities at the bottom of the pages. They were my main source of revision and I got A's. I probably would have failed my ICT exam without the CGP guide - but that's probably because most of our lessons were coursework lessons, and again, got an A.

On the whole, I think the gcse revision guides aren't that bad - I had them for most of my subjects.

However, for AS-level,I have the OCR syllabus specific biology guide for - and I don't think it's as good as the GCSE guide - it's just not detailed enough for the course.

Reply 15

Unregistered

-mb-

It is absolutely unacceptable to suggest that it is "okay" to be doing A-Level maths and not be understanding how the methods you use actually work.

It is totally the wrong attitude to take, and CGP would be better off finding good ways of explaining this simple concept to those who do not understand it, rather than making pointless flippant remarks.

The idiotic sentence encourages no-one, makes no-one laugh, and is counter-productive.

No crap about "lightening up" - this is not an "alternative" approach, it's just inexcusable bull.

well I am doing A-level maths, am predicted an A, and hell I don't really understand quite a lot of what we do. As long as I get through my exams, I don't really care unduly about understanding absolutely everything. S1, for example - many of the formulae etc presented in the S1 book on my course have the added note "this will be explained in book S3 as its derivation is outside the scope of S1" or whatever.

This is a past paper markscheme, not a comprehensive A-level textbook. If a person couldn't see how it worked (which is fairly obvious, let's be honest) then they can easily consult a textbook or another person.

And I never told you to "lighten up".

Rosie

Reply 16

ThornsnRoses

11

koldtoast

I've been VERY VERY lazy with my physics revision (probs because the end is near) and I've just been reading through the Collins Total Revision Guide.

I know exactly what you mean...im exhausted. I use Collins aswell...CGP ceriously pisses me off...Collins is much easier and clearer.

Reply 17

Karim

5

Ellie4

CGP books are fairly useless on the whole. They try to make funny jokes which aren't funny, and oversimplofy things. They should only really be used to consolidate after you've been revising from your notes.

Their not useless for every1, science wasn't my strongest point at GCSE, and my notes were impossible to revisie from, but after total reliace on CGP I came away with double A*

what do they say bout the proof being in the pudding?

Just a shame u can't get them for my A-Levels!!!

CGP GCSE Physics - Not that great?

Related discussions

Articles for you