I can't believe I am reading a recommendation that someone with little background in E&M self-studies with Jackson. That book is incredibly difficult even with a great graduate-level professor.
He asked me how to learn physics; not how to learn some wimpy undergrad physics which doesn't give you the big picture. Hindsight my undergrad E&M book was a waste of time, and we should have just used Jackson. I still have Jackson (and Eyges) on my shelf; the undergrad book was recycled years ago.
Jackson's problems are more technically difficult than, say, Purcell's, but how much of that difficulty actually helps with understanding E&M?
Also, the look into the Feynman book QED once you have a little bit under your belt. Its a fun and pretty short read and there isn't much math at all. I also think its a fun thing to read while learning EM since it opens you mind up to the next subject down the line, QED.
Coming from Nuclear Engineering I thought it was fine.
To me that’s just a subjective list the author likes.
The replies seem a bit on the level of “...but everyone knows really.”
I always took notions like “expert” virtue signaling to mean experts seem convinced we should all learn via the timelines they did.
Uni students versed in textbook physics, linear timelines for learning cause that’s how society taught them, are also experts in working cognitive theories. Incredible.
but the prompt isn't "list some books you like" but "how should I learn" so there's obviously intent in picking those books.
English is a terrible language and taking how we use it so literally is as bad as the language itself.