Still, an important thing for a physics undergrad student to realise is that they can't learn everything. Properly learning what Hooft listed would be the equivalent of a good education but I don't like the combination of being biased towards his interests while also demanding that this is the only correct way.

My science background didn't follow the exact same route and, after comparing notes with a friend at a different university and looking at modules of other universities, while they both follow the same general pattern, the order is different and the module selection available expresses different focuses of the department.

Personally, I think his list doesn't contain enough core mathematics and is too broad. Major areas that professional theoretical physicists specialise in are not mentioned at all (atomic physics, quantum information, condensed matter physics, density functional theory, mathematical physics, fluid dynamics).

I guess my complaint is that the list fails to highlight the core topics and fundamentals as well as failing to demonstrate how one can specialise. A vital skill needed to be a good theoretical physicist is the ability to think for yourself and learn without a syllabus.