I'm not so sure Schaum's is that great. I want to "cut the crap" but replace it with a deeper study of whatever the student is studying. I really dislike when

I'm not so sure Schaum's is that great. I want to "cut the crap" but replace it with a deeper study of whatever the student is studying. I really dislike when a mathematics textbook states something like "The proof is too complicated and therefore not included." Let me be the judge of that. At least indicate where I may find a proof of a theorem if it's not included in the text. I also believe that logic and proofs should be taught much earlier in the curriculum than at present, and I don't consider the simple geometric proofs learned in high school to be a firm basis on which to start. Under my plan, something like Rudin should be what is taught as a last math class in high school. Some may say that is too ambitious. I don't think so.