My experience is the opposite of yours in just about every point, and I have frequently seen complaints that science textbooks for American undergraduates are absurdly bloated.
There are different kinds of science textbooks, and the criticism of bloat is not leveled against the sorts of texts that are criticized for being too dense and impenetrable. For example, a common target of the bloat allegation is Stewart’s 1368 page Calculus text. You won’t find people making the complaints that Phil is making in this post about that book and others of its bloated ilk.
My experience is the opposite of yours in just about every point, and I have frequently seen complaints that science textbooks for American undergraduates are absurdly bloated.
“Bloat” seems to suggest that the author or publisher decided to put two or more books within the same binding...
There are different kinds of science textbooks, and the criticism of bloat is not leveled against the sorts of texts that are criticized for being too dense and impenetrable. For example, a common target of the bloat allegation is Stewart’s 1368 page Calculus text. You won’t find people making the complaints that Phil is making in this post about that book and others of its bloated ilk.