Ask Lemmy

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?