When I took high school geometry it was classic Euclidean.
Bertrand Russel was very hostile to Euclidean geometry after he published Principia Mathematica because Euclid's geometry was incomplete.
After Godel published his incompleteness proof for simple arithmetic Russell kept his mouth shut.
At any rate my approach to geometry was quite simple memorize all the axioms including their names and do all the end of chapter exercises citing every axiom I used in the proof. I ended up with a perfect score on the final.
Oddly enough I had switched to the academic stream the year before and had to catch up. In grade eleven I was finishing 9th grade algebra while doing 10th grade geometry and 11th grade algebra at the same time.
My friends from junior high who thought I was a duffus, couldn't understand why I could switch from a non academic to academic steam in one year, do twice their course load and get a first class average.
The answer simple hard work.
Bertrand Russel was very hostile to Euclidean geometry after he published Principia Mathematica because Euclid's geometry was incomplete. Eh? This seems an odd claim. What does "complete" mean? And why would Russell care about the level of completeness of geometry? What has geometry to do with the attempt to put a formal development from the basic laws of logic, under arithmetic? How is "Principia Mathematica" any more "complete" than Euclidian geometry?
After Godel published his incompleteness proof for simple arithmetic Russell kept his mouth shut.
Eh? Russell was a great promoter of Godel, and knew long before Godel published that Principia was a somewhat wrong-headed project, for several reasons, some related to what Godel demonstrated. And the notion of Russell shutting up about anything doesn't seem very plausable.