Have you ever had a textbook you hated? Or was just plan bad?

I'm in a situation where I know I'm going to hate my textbook, because it is badly written and relies on poor/outdated science, but I've already paid for the class and I need the class to raise my GPA.

Just realized I put more information if I'd like to start a discussion (duh)

Basically I'm taking a Psych of Gender class, and despite the textbook being published late last year, it cites mostly, if not exclusively, outdated information (pre-'08) that has been disproven.

Psychology of Gender sounds like it has potential to be a great or terrible class. If your assertion regarding the textbook is reflective, it sounds terrible.

I have not really had many textbooks which I grievously disagreed with. There will be points of difference, but in most cases these are more pedantic points. Psychology does have a reputation for having particularly bad textbooks though. I hear they still treat Derek Freeman as an authoritative voice. Yuck!

reddeath26: The book is pretty bad. I could only preview a few sporadic pages, the full book is coming Tuesday, but I got a lot of information, as well as more previews, from the author's website. The Author on her website admits the book is more about physical health than mental and emotional. It also compares stigmatized of a man wearing a dress to a women changing her own tire, which isn't accurate. It also discourages men from using campus-sponsored safety precautions (such as security escorts, or security drivers) at night, because it's a "feminine" thing to do, and therefore shouldn't be used by "gender-conforming" men.

I am guessing you now have your copy of the textbook? What did you mean by citing outdated and disproven sources? Does it still cite that case study of the railway worker who had an accident whereby a chunk of metal pierced his brain? As I do recall reading that there is a real problem with psychology texts misrepresenting what happened.

By speaking more to physical health implications, do you mean it is treating the material in more of a biological reductionist framing? I would be curious as to whether it is drawing from evolutionary psychology foundations. If you don't mind me asking, could you possibly tell me the name of the textbook in question? Thank you.

We had to read a book called "The Nine" by an author I'm afraid I don't recall at the moment. It was about the nine Supreme Court Justices. I didn't mind it too much until I got to the chapter about Clarence Thomas.

It just skipped right over the whole Anita Hill debacle, and went on to describe him as a 'super swell guy' who knew everyone's name.
I was never so disgusted with a book.

I had a book back in pharmacy school which regularly contradicted itself.
Then there is the "math book".... which was almost constantly wrong. It almost drove the math major in our class nuts.