<p>1) You don’t look at just one textbook, no book is complete.
2) Do the assigned problems. Or find a webpage for a class that is using that book and do the problems assigned there.
3) Differences in approach, problem difficulty, writing style, etc. Griffiths for example often includes important points within problems rather than in the text. I hate Griffiths for this reason. One quantum text may include scattering, another may not. One e&m book may cover special relativity, another may not.
4) The physics GRE is 75% Halliday and Resnick level stuff, so it’s worth it to study as much as possible.
5) I’ve only read Six Easy Pieces and didn’t care for it.
6) Math is all about practicing.</p>
<p>Here is an article I was reading yesterday. The important part (for you) is the section about halfway down where he starts talking about idiot savants:</p>
<p>[Views</a> From An Affirmative Activist](<a href=“http://www.aas.org/cswa/status/2000/JANUARY2000/Georgi.html]Views”>http://www.aas.org/cswa/status/2000/JANUARY2000/Georgi.html)</p>
<p>My point is that many many physics books and classes are all about math methods and problem-solving methods for certain types of problems, but they usually aren’t about physics, per se. For example, get a copy of the book “Thinking Physics,” it’s full of physics brain teasers (there are many such books and I recommend buying them all). Studying physics formally didn’t always prepare me for those puzzles, because they aren’t about equations or formulae or solving for a variable, they are about what happens in the physical world and why. Books like that will do you more good at this point than rushing to get to grad-level texts, IMO. If you want to get ahead, just master Halliday and Resnick level physics and college-level differential and integral calculus. That would put you a year ahead of most other physics majors.</p>