Schools Physics Graduate School Without Physics Courses

[micromass]

Obis, please answer Vanadiums question...

 

[cbetanco]

I don't want to answer that, because it makes not too much difference. Even if I were in high school now, the fact that I learn more from reading than solving problems would still be true, at least that's the way I see it.

I think it actually does make a difference if you are in High School or a PhD in Physics. You might think you know a lot, but if you can't solve the problems, then there are obviously gaps in your learning. Solving problems is when you really have to think hard about what you know and don't know. And if they are good problems, then solving them should give you tremendous insight into the subject that you just can't get by reading a book.

 

[homeomorphic]

I am a 6th year grad student in math (PhD in August if things go well--adviser says he thinks I can graduate this year, but otherwise, I will face the dreaded 7th year and possible lack of funding, but I promise I will have a PhD in two years at most), and I have some sympathy with what Obis is saying, although I am not in complete agreement. Of course, he also realizes that solving problems is necessary. I think it's complicated issue, so it's hard to do it justice here.

Math and physics are similar enough that I think that the fact that I do math doesn't make that big of a difference, plus, I do physics-related math and have studied a fair amount of physics, too.

There are a couple problems with active reading, though. First of all, what you want to do is get your OWN perceptions into it as much as possible. Of course, you need the book because your own perceptions aren't quite enough to come up with the subject by yourself. So, active reading can be good, but you don't want to be too dependent on the textbook. Trying to do problems before reading everything carefully can get you more involved in the process from the start.

But, you have to do what works, depending on the situation. Sometimes, you might need to do more reading first. Sometimes, the problems won't be good problems. Sometimes, the textbook sucks, and all the textbooks on the subject suck, so you need to be more self-sufficient and try to come up with as much of the theory on your own as possible. It just depends.

There's something to be said about thinking about the theory. In high school and early undergrad, I had more of a "just do the problems" approach. Then, at some point, I started thinking about the theory more, and it was a lot more effective in terms of my understanding and retention of the material. Then, in grad school, I shifted back more towards doing problems, but still retained a lot of the thinking stuff over. So, you need to do both, I think. Sometimes, when you do the problems, you do some of the thinking you need, but it's not always enough.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I don't want to answer that, because it makes not too much difference. Even if I were in high school now, the fact that I learn more from reading than solving problems would still be true, at least that's the way I see it.

Yes, but it would not be relevant advice for someone who is working on problems many years more advanced.

 

[homeomorphic]

Let me elaborate a little on what lead me to use the "active reading" approach a little less and be more problem-oriented, recently.

First, my qualifying exams when I started graduate school impressed upon me the point that you want to be good at DOING real analysis, say, rather than just understanding the theory. You have to know the tricks to doing the problems, and so on. You want to be able to move beyond the existing theory to be able to create your own. Of course, this can go both ways. Someone else told me that they needed to do more reading and understand the concepts, rather than practicing the problems. For me, I already knew all the concepts, so what was left was just to practice problems. But that was because I had already laid the groundwork in terms of thinking about the theory enough.

Secondly, while working on my thesis, I found that I understood the theory that I personally came up with much better than the theory that I "actively read". So, I am now taking the attitude that I don't like to read as much, if I can avoid it, because when I come up with it, it makes so much more sense and is much easier to remember and much more intuitive. Of course, this was something I was aware of all along, but working on a big research project drove it home a lot more because, when you are doing research, you have to think about the big picture more. When I used to read books, I was more focused on doing things one step at a time, rather than making a whole plan for how the theory should unfold. So, now when I read stuff, I try to approach it more as if I am doing research, but the book or paper is giving me hints to help me if I get stuck.