For example neither SR or tensor calc is needed for EM,

Of course I know very well that all physics courses present EM before SR and tensors, but my point is that this usual order, that is assumed to be the "normal order", is in fact not logical for the deep mathematical structure of the theories. I see it as a bad way to do. For example, how do you make sense of the formula expressing ∇ × (∇ ×

**F**), which is actually needed to work with electromagnetism ? You may say it is just the same formula as a double cross product, indeed the notation looks the same, but just taking this appearance as if it was a proof in this context is an extreme abuse of notation, while the framework of tensors gives fully correct immediate justification (it immediately justifies the applicability of the formula of double cross product).

The Maxwell's equations are a big system of 4 equations, that is first introduced as a big pack without justification, thus that looks completely artificial and mysterious at first, and takes time to decipher to develop its consequences and its remarkable properties. It is not a simple thing.

But if tensors were introduced first, then to get electromagnetism, all we need is to take the simple system of 2 equations of electrostatics and extend it to one more dimension in the right way (upgrading the dimension of charges from 0 to 1).

In essence, he enjoyed the system because there was no system, and I doubt it would work at all if he tried to dogmatically apply the order he chose to other students.

First, I did not enjoy anything because I was in the system that repressed my thinking abilities. And I could only learn theoretical physics during my high school years by dedicating to it the little free time that it let me.

Second, what the f**k is this suspicion that I might suggest or tolerate any kind of dogmatic decision to generalize my case to all other students ? I did explicitly say in my text that I criticize the current system for its dogmatic way of assuming that any unique method, whatever it may be, should be found to uniformly apply to all.

And I think that you are the dogmatic one when you write

students may not actually know exactly which subject they want to specialize in when they're at high school, so sacrificing diversity would mean forcing them into a box they may later come to regret

by your way of implicitly assuming that it makes any sense to discuss about the needs of "students" and what could be good or bad to "them", forgetting that "they" are different from each other. Of course

**some** may not know exactly which subject they want to specialize in when they're at high school, but the situation of

**these ones** should not excuse to mismanage the case of

**some others**, forcing them into an education that makes no sense for them because they may have no need of one subject but waste their time by boredom when attending another subject that they already know as they may have discovered it themselves in their previous free time.

I said that there should potentially be best courses available on each subject. Not that everybody should learn in the same way. Please don't confuse that.

I think there ultimately should be a panorama of best courses, each adapted to a different kind of reader that everybody should be free to read/watch or not (and, okay, sometimes obligations may be needed too), at different speeds that fit their own learning abilities, and with optional complements that some people will need to see, and others not. It does not change the fact that there is a concept of perfect course. A perfect course containing this perfect complement or detailed explanation to interest 10% of its readers, and that other perfect complement to interest 5% of its other readers, and so on. Is that clear ?