general

Compared to Callister and Ashby, and here's why.

I agree with arthem, that this book doesn't go into enough detail for the person that wants to know "why". But it's not supposed to. It is by no means a chemistry book, so you have to have a SOLID chemistry background/understanding/feeling or you might have a hard time. It takes more of the "cookbook", need-to-know, macroscopic approach, whereas Callister is more of the theory. My first materials course used the Askeland book, and the third used Callister, and I found it effective to get the overview, then go into the "why" details later. My TA's and Prof's hated Askeland's style, but I don't think they appreciated what it brought to the table....understanding. Understand the concept (i.e. more carbon makes steel stronger), then learn why.

Either of them are better than Ashby. I'd write a review on Ashby's books, but that means to be fair I'd have to dig them out, and I'm hoping rats ate them. Too bad too, my profs were rather fond of Ashby.

I have to reserve a star for this book, because with a little more info it would be that much better. That, and I remember as a student, the problems were tough, tougher than the text prepared you for.

Which reminds me, my exam questions frequently came out of this text in subsequent classes. Ironic since the prof's hated this book. hmm.

I just completed a course in materials science using the 4th edition and have been appalled by the poor quality of the book (spiffy cover artwork aside).

The book is full of generalizations that impart no significant understanding of the topics treated. Commonly, the book will simply assert that X causes Y without any physical justification as to WHY. Illustratively, when the book touches upon atomic structure, it uses a figure depicting the Bohr model of the atom without any reference to this being a simplification, nor any reference to the "actual" character of atomic orbitals.

Additionally, the book is rife with poorly worded problems which are accompanied by answers that seeminly have no correspondence to their respective problems. I did not do a single problem set from the book without finding at least one problem where the answer was just plain wrong. A particularly amusing instance was the assignment of units of area to a dimensionless answer (and NO, the quantity wasn't right, either).

STAY FAR AWAY FROM THIS BOOK.

The primary feature of Askeland's text is in the speed with which its sections can be read. Unfortunately, this is due to the lack of necessary detail. Difficult concepts are often glossed over, while simpler topics receive undue attention. The example problems don't seem as relevant as they might be, and certainly bear more strongly on the author's skills than on the student's.

I may be unfairly comparing this book with Callister's "Materials Science and Engineering," but given the choice of either as a reference source, I would hesitate to choose Askeland. If you are stuck with the Askeland text for a course, but really need to understand material behavior, then invest in the Callister book as a backup - it will greatly enhance your understanding.