And another vote for Schroeder, also from someone using it for the
third time. In my opinion, Schroeder's writing is very similar to
that of David Griffiths and THAT is a very good thing. He uses
precise but informal language, makes good use of analogy, and
anticipates and answers the objections of careful readers.
There is a significant difference between the style of introductory
and upper division physics texts. Beginning upper division students
need to unlearn bad "reading" habits they often develop in the
introductory course and be taught pretty explicitly what it takes to
read and learn independently from advanced texts. The biggest hurdle
is gaining the self-confidence that assures them that, IF the book is
written with care, they CAN learn from it independently as long as
they devote the requisite time and effort. Books like Schroeder's
and Griffiths' are invaluable aids in helping students to reach that
confidence level.
I make my junior level classes turn in "reading memos" each day in
which they voice their reactions to the reading, write out questions
that occur to them, and often answer them as a natural result of the
effort it takes them simply to explain their confusion verbally.
Indeed, that is part of the point of reading memos. The first time I
taught the thermal physics course, I had a student who came to the
course nervous about her ability to succeed in physics, but who also
took my assigned task of learning how to read seriously. At the end
of the course she made my day (year perhaps) by telling me that as a
result of my forcing her to learn how to read, she discovered to her
delight that "physics isn't impossible; it's MERELY really, really
hard!" I'm convinced that Schroeder's book had a lot to do with
helping her develop her self confidence.