I have a unique way of studying that seems to work well for me, but I’m curious if it’s a good long-term strategy.
Whenever I start a new topic in physics or math, instead of diving into the theory or derivations, I first skim through a variety of solved problems to get a sense of the types of questions typically asked. I take notes on the key concepts and methods I encounter, focusing on recognizing patterns across different problems.
Once I’ve built a mental “map” of the topic through problem-solving, I attempt unsolved problems using my notes and keep adding new observations as I go. By the end, I feel confident about most question types and can solve them quickly. After that, I might revisit the theory with a sense of curiosity, wanting to understand the “why” behind the formulas and patterns I’ve observed.
This approach has helped me become faster at solving problems compared to my peers. However, I sometimes worry that I might miss out on deeper conceptual understanding, especially for rare, extremely challenging problems.
The reason I lean toward this method is that I tend to forget theoretical details over time, but problem-solving strategies stick with me much longer. It feels like I develop an intuitive “second brain” for tackling problems.
So, is this a valid way to study? Or should I switch to the more conventional approach of learning theory first and then solving problems?
The only thing I’d do is go back and look to see if you are applying the theory you are supposed to learn after you solve the problem. Applying a novel approach isn’t bad in the real world, but a lot of problems provided can be solved multiple ways.
Otherwise, I’d keep doing what you’re doing.